Society for the Preservation of the Englishman River Estuary v. Nanaimo (Regional District) et al., (1999) 4 B.C.T.C. 356 (SC)

• Judge: Macaulay, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 19, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 356 (SC)

Englishman River Estuary v. Nanaimo (1999), 4 B.C.T.C. 356 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MR.050

The Society for the Preservation of the Englishman River Estuary (petitioner) v. The Regional District of Nanaimo, The City of Parksville, and the Town of Qualicum Beach, doing business as Arrowsmith Water Service (respondents)

(A982188)

Indexed As: Society for the Preservation of the Englishman River Estuary v. Nanaimo (Regional District) et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Macaulay, J.

February 19, 1999.

Summary:

To increase domestic water supply, the respondent municipalities and regional dis­trict adopted bylaws for the building of a dam on Arrowsmith Creek, which flowed into the Englishman River. After the dam was built, the Society for the Preservation of the Englishman River Estuary alleged that its height exceeded 15 meters and that the dam was thus a "reviewable project" requiring a project approval certificate pursuant to s. 5(1) of the Environmental Assessment Act. The Society invoked the Judicial Review Procedure Act and petitioned for the follow­ing relief: (1) a declaration that the dam was a "reviewable project" according to the Environmental Assessment Act, and (2) an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the respondents to apply for a project appro­val certificate. The Society did not directly challenge the respondents' bylaws but con­tended that the respondents' failure to apply for a project approval certificate rendered their legislative acts invalid.

The British Columbia Supreme Court dismissed the application because: (1) the respondents did not exercise a statutory power amenable to review and declaratory relief under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and (2) the petitioner was not entitled to public interest standing for its petition.

Municipal Law - Topic 1682

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of powers - Scope of powers of judicial review - See paragraphs 1 to 22, 56.

Municipal Law - Topic 1693

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of powers - Status or standing -Persons entitled to apply - See para­graphs 23 to 56.

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Indi­viduals and corporations - Status or stand­ing - Public interest standing (incl. requi­rements of) - See paragraphs 23 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

Collins v. Renfrew Hydro-Electric Com­mission, [1948] O.R. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84; 42 D.L.R.(4th) 81; 9 R.F.L.(3d) 225, consd. [para. 24].

Borowski v. Canada (Minister of Justice) and Canada (Minister of Finance), [1981] 2 S.C.R. 575; 39 N.R. 331; 12 Sask.R. 420; [1982] 1 W.W.R. 97; 24 C.R.(3d) 352; 24 C.P.C. 62; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 588, consd. [para. 31].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 603, consd. [para. 31].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 193, consd. [para. 31].

Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers, [1977] 3 All E.R. 70 (H.L.), consd. [para. 31].

Carruthers and Whelton v. Langley (1985), 69 B.C.L.R. 24 (C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

Shiell v. Amok Ltd. and Saskatchewan Mining Corp. et al. (1987), 58 Sask.R. 141; 2 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 219 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 45].

Manitoba Naturalists Society Inc. v. Ducks Unlimited (Canada), [1992] 2 W.W.R. 377; 79 Man.R.(2d) 15 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 46].

Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) and Saskatchewan Water Corp., [1989] 3 F.C. 309; 26 F.T.R. 245 (T.D.), dist. [para. 49].

Sierra Club of Western Canada v. British Columbia (Chief Forester) (1993), 22 Admin. L.R.(2d) 129 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 49].

Friends of the Island Inc. v. Canada (Min­ister of Public Works) et al. (1993), 61 F.T.R. 4; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 696 (T.D.), dist. [para. 49].

Stein v. Winnipeg (City) (1974), 48 D.L.R.(3d) 223 (Man. C.A.), dist. [para. 49].

Union of Northern Workers v. Jewell et al. (1991), Carswell N.W.T. 50 (N.W.T.S.C.), dist. [para. 49].

Distribution Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 1 F.C. 716; 39 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), affd. (1993), 149 N.R. 152; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 440 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 50].

Saskatchewan Action Foundation for the Environment Inc. v. Saskatchewan (Min­ister of the Environment and Public Safety) (1992), 97 Sask.R. 135; 12 W.A.C. 135; 7 C.E.L.R.(N.S.) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

Statutes Noticed:

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 119, sect. 2 [para. 7]; sect. 5(1) [para. 3].

Environmental Assessment Act Regula­tions (B.C.), Reg. 276/95, sect. 33(1)(a) [para. 3].

Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241, sect. 2(2)(b) [para. 16].

Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, sect. 594(2), sect. 596(1), sect. 598(2), sect. 598(3), sect. 598(4), sect. 798(1)(b) [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Rogers, Ian M., The Law of Canadian Municipal Corpor­ations (2nd Ed.) (Looseleaf Supp. 1997), generally [para. 18].

Counsel:

R. Christensen and T. Howard, for the petitioner;

G. Anderson and S. Manhas, for the res­pondents;

H. Groberman, for the Attorney General of British Columbia.

This application was heard on November 12, 13 and 16, 1998, by Macaulay, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on February 19, 1999.