Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: December 31, 2019
CASE NO.: 19-072
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 100.1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: 401 Trucksource Inc. (File No. 19-072)
Appellant: Four-O-One Diesel Centre Ltd. (File No. 19-073)
Respondent: The Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh
Subject of appeal: Order to pay in relation to cost incurred for the prevention, elimination or amelioration of spilled pollutants
Property Address/Description: 4293 County Road 46 and 4489 County Road 46
Municipality: Town of Tecumseh
Upper Tier: County of Essex
ERT Case No.: 19-072
ERT Case Name: 401 Trucksource Inc. v. Tecumseh (Town)
Heard: October 19, 2019 in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
401 Trucksource Inc. (“Appellant”)
Philip S. Chandler
Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh (“Respondent”)
Aaron Farough
MOTION DECISION DELIVERED BY MAUREEN HELT
Overview
1401 Trucksource Inc., the Appellant, filed a Notice of Appeal dated October 2, 2019, from a Municipality’s Order for Costs and Expenses of the Respondent, the Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh (the “Town”).
2The Municipal Order, dated March 7, 2017, was made pursuant to s. 100.1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990 (the “Act”). Section 100.1(1) of the Act requires the owner or person having control a pollutant, if a pollutant is spilled, to pay for the reasonable costs and expenses to prevent, eliminate or ameliorate any adverse effects or to restore the natural environment. The Appellant was ordered to pay $75,290.81 to the Town.
3As the Municipal Order was dated in March 7, 2017, and there is only a 15-day period after issuance of the Municipal Order to file an appeal, the Appellant filed a motion with the Tribunal for an Order extending the time for the Appellant to give notice of appeal pursuant to s. 100.1(7) of the Act.
4The Appellant argues the extension of time ought to be grounded on the basis that they did not appreciate there was a statutory deadline for serving notice of appeal, they were in prolonged discussions with the Municipality concerning the merits of the Municipal Order, there is merit to their appeal and the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness support an extension of time to file an appeal.
5The Town opposes the motion and requests that the Tribunal order costs to the Town on a full indemnity basis.
Issue
6Should the Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file its appeal be granted?
Result
7The Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the Municipal Order is denied.
Analysis
8As noted by the Town in its submission, the Tribunal, as a creature of statute, only has the jurisdiction that it is given to it by statute and as such, the Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the relevant limitation period.1
9The language of s. 100.1(7) of the Act is clear. It allows a person to whom an order of a municipality is directed to require a hearing by the Tribunal within 15 days of the person being served with a copy of the order.
Appeals
(7) A person to whom an order of a municipality is directed under subsection (1) may, by written notice served on the municipality and the Tribunal within 15 days after service on the person of a copy of the order, require a hearing by the Tribunal. 2005, c. 12, s. 1(21).
10An extension of time is only permitted in limited circumstances as set out in s. 100.1(8) of the Act. Specifically,
Extension of time for requiring hearing
(8) The Tribunal shall extend the time in which a person may give a notice under subsection (7) requiring a hearing if, in the Tribunal’s opinion, it is just to do so because service of the order on the person did not give the person notice of the order. 2005, c. 12, s. 1(21).
11The onus is on the Appellant to establish that they have met the statutory exception provided in the Act in order to be granted an extension to the 15-day time period to file an appeal. An exception can be made extending the time if a person was not given notice of the order. There is nothing in the Appellant’s submissions, which supports that it was not given notice of the order.
12There is no dispute that the Municipal Order is dated March 7, 2017. There is also no dispute that the Appellant received the Municipality’s Order shortly after issuance as confirmed by the Appellant in the Affidavit of Peter De Jong, dated October 1, 2019 at paragraph 10.
13Additionally, as early as March 30, 2017, the Appellant had legal representation in this matter and therefore, would or should have been aware of the deadline for an appeal and their ability to request an extension to the deadline at that time.
14The Appellant served their notice of appeal more than two and a half years after the original deadline and three months after the Town’s last correspondence on the matter. The Appellant submits that it was negotiating in good faith with the Town for a lengthy period of time after issuance of the Municipal Order. I find that this in itself does not excuse the Appellant from filing its notice of appeal within the statutory time period. This delay by the Appellant is substantial and does not warrant an extension of time.
15In any event, the Town made it very clear in the time period before the notice of appeal was filed that it considered the amounts owing under the Municipal Order to be payable as set out in the letters dated February 9, 2018 from Wolf Hooker Professional Corporation, April 11, 2019 from the Town, and June 26, 2019 from Wolf Hooker Professional Corporation. The Town also took explicit enforcement action by adding the amount owing under the Municipal Order to the property tax roll of the relevant property on May 2, 2019.
16Lastly, the Appellant argues the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness support the request for an extension of time to file the appeal.
17I disagree that an appeal that is filed 918 days late falls into this category.
Statutory deadlines are intended to be followed with limited exceptions. This is necessary to ensure the principle of finality for all parties is applied.
18The Appellant has failed to establish that it has met the statutory exception of not being provided notice and as such, their motion fails.
DECISION
19The Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the Municipal Order dated March 7, 2017 is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs of this motion.
Motion Dismissed
“Maureen Helt”
MAUREEN HELT ACTING ASSOCIATE CHAIR
If there is an attachment referred to in this document,
please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Environmental Review Tribunal
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248