• The Corporation of Delta v. Assistant Regional Waste Manager

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Pineland Pest Farms Ltd., Approval Holder New West Gypsum Recycling Inc., Third Party


    Decision Date: May 26, 1998

    Panel: Toby Vigod

    Keywords: Waste Management Act – ss. 44, 48; Storage of Recyclable Material Regulation; stay; standing; person aggrieved; relevant considerations to an analysis of standing; Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act; costs

    This was an application for a stay of certain aspects of the Approval issued to Pineland Peat Farms Ltd. authorizing it to discharge composted gypsum waste paper to its property for the purpose of land reclamation. The Corporation of Delta filed an appeal of the Approval and requested a stay of those aspects of the Approval allowing the importation of any further gypsum waste paper to the subject site. In the course of the hearing on the stay application, Pineland applied to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds that Delta did not have standing to appeal, and New West Gypsum applied for costs against Delta.

    The Board found that Delta was a “person aggrieved” and had standing to appeal as it was the host Municipality, had concerns about leachate, and was involved in the Approval process. On the stay application, the Board applied the usual three part test to determine whether to issue a stay. It found that issues were raised regarding the safety of recycling gypsum paper which were neither frivolous nor vexatious. However, the Board found that there was no evidence that Delta would suffer irreparable harm if a stay was not granted. The Board found that there was already several thousand tonnes of gypsum waste material on the site which did not appear to be causing harm to the environment, public health, or to Delta. The Board also considered the balance of convenience and found that, whereas there was no evidence that Delta would suffer irreparable harm if a stay was not granted, there was clear evidence that Pineland would be financially harmed if it was granted. Thus the balance favoured not granting a stay. Finally, the Board found that New West Gypsum’s application for costs was premature and should be addressed at the hearing of the merits of the appeal. The Board denied all of the applications.