BC Environmental Appeal Board
Skip to navigation Skip to Contents Skip to Accessibility Statement
Home Preliminary and Final Decisions Border Feedlot Corporation v. Delegate of the Director, Environmental Manag...
Search Menu
April 21, 2021
File Numbers


Decision Numbers


Third Parties

Decision Date: April 21, 2021

Panel: David Bird

Keywords: Environmental Management Act – s. 81; Administrative Tribunals Act – s. 16; pollution prevention order; agricultural waste; consent order

Border Feedlot Corporation (the “Appellant”) appealed a pollution prevention order issued by the Director, Environmental Management Act (the “Director”), Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (the “Ministry”).

In August 2020, Ministry staff inspected a property (the “Site”) in Surrey as part of a joint inspection with Agricultural Land Commission staff. During the inspection, Ministry staff observed agricultural by-products such as manure and soiled animal bedding being stored at the Site.

The Director was satisfied on reasonable grounds that unauthorized commercial waste management activates were being performed in a manner that was likely to release a substance that would cause pollution. Consequently, the Director issued the order, which required the Appellant to immediately cease transport of manure and similar agricultural waste to the Site, an remove all imported manure and similar agricultural waste from the Site by October 31, 2020.

The Appellants appealed the order on several grounds and requested that the Board reverse the order.

Before the appeal was heard by the Board, the parties negotiated an agreement to resolve the appeal. By consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the Appellant immediately cease transport of manure and any other municipal solid waste or agricultural waste to the Site; and, no later than April 30, 2021, remove all manure and any other municipal solid waste or agricultural waste that is stored at the Site, excluding manure stored in permanent roofed structures. The Board also ordered that the order was reversed.

Accordingly, the appeal was resolved by consent.