Third Party: Forest Practices Board
APPEAL NO. 96/07

The appeal was about the validity of a stop work order issued to prevent damage to the environment, caused by sediment management issues relating to road construction (bridge and culvert placements). The decision-maker also issued a remediation order specifying actions that would remedy the situation. Houston argued that it was not carrying out a forest practice because the work had been completed at the time the orders were issued. The Board argued that the FAC should take a broad interpretation of “carrying out a forest practice” when considering section 45 of the Code, which both orders were based upon. The FAC found that there was no activity in the area and no activity was scheduled to resume, thus, there was no legal authority or practical need for the stop work order. It found that the Code provision for remediation orders requires an actual finding of contravention, whereas the evidence in this appeal was a conservation officer’s opinion that it “appears that fish habitat may have been negatively affected.” This was contrasted to the Waste Management Act, which authorizes proactive prevention orders if harm to the environment “may occur.”

Appeal allowed.

FAC Decision: http://www.fac.gov.bc.ca/forestPracCode/96-07.pdf