Henning Stokholm v. Regional Municipality of York
2912-99-EP Henning Stokholm, Applicant v. Regional Municipality of York, Responding Party.
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 24, 2000
This is an application brought pursuant to section 174 of the Environmental Protection Act (the “EPA”) alleging that the applicant’s termination from employment was a penalty imposed on him for, inter alia, providing information to the Ministry of the Environment. In its response, the responding party raises certain preliminary matters. It asserts that sections II(b) and II(c) of the applicant’s statement of facts should be stricken from the application as irrelevant and unrelated to the claim under section 174 of the EPA and do not disclose any prima facie violation of section 174 of the EPA. That latter assertion has been referred to me for consideration.
The particulars pleaded in sections II(b) and II (c) of the applicant’s statement of fact are pleaded in support of the applicant’s assertion that the decision to terminate his employment was a reprisal taken in violation of section 174 of the EPA. No remedy is being sought particular to the events and/or conduct described in those particular paragraphs. The real issue is whether or not those particulars are relevant to the issues to be determined. I decline therefore to strike those paragraphs for failing to disclose a prima facie case. The issue of relevance is appropriately argued if necessary before the panel of the Board hearing the matter.
This application is referred to the Registrar to list for hearing.
“M. A. Nairn”
for the Board