Appeal Tribunal denies landowner's appeal of adverse costs award in drainage case

Last August, I wrote about a Drainage Act decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal in which a landowner was hit with a $10,000 cost order after failing to show up for the hearing (landowner boycotts drainage hearing).  The landowner, Richard Gosselin, applied for a review of the Tribunal's decision (by the Tribunal itself).  All aspects of the landowner's review application were dismissed.  With respect to the $10,000 costs award in favour of the municipality, the Tribunal wrote the following:

The Tribunal appropriately considered all of the circumstances prior to making its award of costs against the Appellant. If the Appellant had attended the hearing, he could have spoken to the issues of cost and provided testimony in response to the Township's submissions on costs. Further, the Rules clearly state that failing to attend a hearing constitute circumstances amounting to bad conduct. The Appellant, prior to refusing to attend the hearing, ought, or should have known that the failure to attend may result in an adverse cost award pursuant to Rule 28.04. Further, on June 10, 2010 the Appellant attempted to circumvent the Tribunal's processes and procedures by: writing panel members directly; failing to comply with the Tribunal's interim Order of May 28, 2010; and requesting numerous adjournments absent providing any evidence in support of the request.

Read the decision at: Hambly Sabourin and Beach Beaulac Municipal Drains.

NEB says its process setting location of International Power Line without a public hearing complied with Canadian Bill of Rights

The National Energy Board (NEB) has rejected a request by landowners for review of its decision to grant Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL) a permit to construct and operate an International Power Line (IPL) between Alberta and Montana.  Affected landowners participated in proceedings before the provincial EUB, then lost on appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal, and had their application for leave to appeal that decision dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.  They argued, in part, that the determination of the route of the proposed IPL is to be determined by the provincial regulator, not the NEB. 

The landowners asked the NEB to review and overturn its own permit decision because the NEB had itself decided on the location and routing of the IPL in a process that did not include a public hearing.  The landowners argued that Parliament, when it drafted the NEB Act, did not intend that the NEB could decide the location and routing of the IPL without a public hearing.  In fact, they argued that Parliament instead intended that the provincial regulator would determine the location of the line.  The NEB disagreed with both arguments and rejected the request for review of its decision.

One particularly interesting part of this case is the discussion of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed into law in the 1960's and remains on the books today (even though the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982).  What is different about the Bill of Rights, which applies to the Federal Government, is that it contains a protection for property rights: “enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.”  The NEB agreed with MATL that this right did not require that the NEB hold a public hearing.  The NEB ruled that its own process of allowing interested parties to file comments on its proposed decision was sufficient to meet the test for "due process of law". 

Read the NEB's decision at: Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. (MATL).