Decision Date: June 6, 2003
Panel: Lorraine Shore
Keywords: Environment Management Act – s. 11; Wildlife Act – ss. 1 definition of “person”, 101, 101.1; jurisdiction; standing; substituting appellant; third parties; withdrawn appeal
Carmen Nyuli appealed the decision of the Regional Manager that affected his ability to obtain or hold a guide outfitter licence or assistant guide licence, and his ability to use or transfer his guide outfitter certificate.
The Third Parties, Thomas Fox (“Fox”) and Fox Lake Outfitters Ltd. (“FLO”), requested that if Mr. Nyuli withdrew his appeal and “vacated” his position as the appellant, then the Third Parties should be substituted as appellants. Due to Mr. Nyuli’s decision to withdraw his appeal following an interim decision from the Board(see Appeal No. 2002-WIL-011(a), May 16, 2003), the Board made an interim decision on the application of Fox and FLO (Appeal No. 2002-WIL-011(b), May 16, 2003). These are the full reasons for that decision.
Fox and FLO argued that Mr. Nyuli’s appeal was really made on behalf of them because Mr. Nyuli was an officer of FLO, remains under contract to FLO, and has a trust arrangement with Fox and FLO whereby he holds a guide outfitter certificate on their behalf.
The Board found there was no evidence that Mr. Nyuli filed the appeal on behalf of anyone other than himself. The Board came to this conclusion on the basis that Mr. Nyuli used his own letterhead and used the personal pronoun “I” in his Notice of Appeal, made no mention of his position as secretary for FLO, and at no time asserted that he had filed the appeal on behalf of Fox and FLO.
Also, the Board noted that Fox and FLO had not explained why they asked for third party status on Mr. Nyuli’s appeal if they believed themselves to be the true appellants. In addition, it was unclear whether Fox and FLO would have been entitled to appeal the Regional Manager’s decision. Had they been entitled, they failed to file an appeal in time, and the Board has no authority to extend the time limit to accept new appeals.
The Board also found that it was without jurisdiction to substitute the Third Parties as appellants. Although the Board recognized that it is master of its own procedure, the substitution of an appellant was found to be more fundamental or substantive than procedural, and to be beyond the authority of the Board. Therefore, the Board found the withdrawal of the appeal ended the matter.
The Board denied the Third Parties’ application to become the appellant