Imperial Oil Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minster of Water, Land and Air Protection)

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. British Columbia (Minster of Water, Land and Air Protection)

The court concluded respondent had in fact decided to issue the AIP but unlawfully conditioned issuance on settlement of third-party tort claims, which are outside the statutory powers and purposes of the Waste Management Act; conditioning the AIP on such irrelevant considerations and effectively delegating the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCSC 219
Parties
Petitioner: Imperial Oil Limited; Respondent (deputy Director of Waste Management, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection): Ron Driedger; Interested Parties: Certain Property Owners; Intervener: Environmental Appeal Board
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Mandamus granted directing respondent to issue AIP draft #8 forthwith; balance of petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Contaminated Sites, Approval in Principle (aip), Mandamus, Procedural Fairness, Bias and Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Remediation Order, Responsible Person Finding, Appeal Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Environmental Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Tort Law Contaminated Sites Approval in Principle (aip) Mandamus Procedural Fairness +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Oil Limited

Petitioner

Ron Driedger

Respondent (deputy Director of Waste Management, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection)

Certain Property Owners

Interested Parties

Environmental Appeal Board

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent unlawfully withheld an Approval in Principle (AIP) by conditioning it on settlement of civil claims (irrelevant consideration) and whether mandamus should issue
  2. 2 Whether the Remediation Order, Responsible Person Finding and Preliminary Determination were issued in breach of procedural fairness and natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is biased or there is a reasonable apprehension of bias requiring disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded respondent had in fact decided to issue the AIP but unlawfully conditioned issuance on settlement of third-party tort claims, which are outside the statutory powers and purposes of the Waste Management Act; conditioning the AIP on such irrelevant considerations and effectively delegating the decision to the owners exceeded jurisdiction and warranted an order of mandamus compelling immediate issuance of the AIP in the form of draft #8; remaining relief (bias and procedural fairness claims regarding Remediation Orders) was dismissed as moot.

Court Disposition

Mandamus granted directing respondent to issue AIP draft #8 forthwith; balance of petition dismissed

Orders

  • Order in the nature of mandamus directing respondent to issue the Approval in Principle in the form referred to in respondent's letter dated June 14, 2001 (draft #8) forthwith
  • All other relief sought in the petition dismissed