18 February 2010

ACC Appeal Hung Up on Technicality

Kamloops British Columbia - An environmental appeal of Aboriginal Cogeneration Corporation's permit for a Mission Flats gasification plant is stalled over a technicality.
 
The Environmental Appeal Board has notified appellant Ruth Madsen, who filed the appeal under the name Thompson Institute of Environmental Studies (TIES), that TIES does not have the required status as a legal "person" according to law.
 
For the appeal to proceed, Madsen has to either prove that TIES has legal society status or re-submit her appeal under her own name.
 
"Before the board has jurisdiction over this, it has to be a person of standing," said Colleen Smith, executive director of the board. "The one question outstanding is whether this organization meets the definition of person so that we can define our jurisdiction over it."
 
Madsen is in Palm Springs and could not be reached for comment. That may explain her delay in responding to the board, which advised her of the appeal's deficiency 12 Feb 2010.
 
"We haven't received her response to the question yet," Smith said.
 
A longtime environmentalist, Madsen has used the TIES name for years but may not have acquired or maintained its society status. A search of the B.C. Corporate Registry web site by The Daily News resulted in no matches for Thompson Institute of Environmental Studies on the list of existing corporations and societies.
 
Madsen's appeal represents the sole regulatory challenge intended to prevent the controversial cogeneration plant from proceeding. ACC was granted a permit 7 Jan 2010 to operate two one-megawatt gasifiers using creosote-treated railway ties as feed stock.
 
Bronwen Scott, a fellow activist, said the technicality could prove to be a major setback. Environmental appeals are often filed under the names of organizations such as TIES to avoid personal litigation.
 
"Unless she's kept up her society status, indeed they are correct," Scott said of the technicality.
 
Environmentalists are wary of what they call SLAPPs, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, that can stop an appeal in its tracks.
 
"In order to have standing, an individual has to prove they've been aggrieved by the permit, but at the same time it opens up an individual to a strategic lawsuit."
 
Despite the setback, Scott said there is a legitimate basis for the appeal to proceed.
 
"These things are necessary and it would be a gross miscarriage of natural justice if the appeal were not allowed to go through."
 
Only an appeal can fully address public concerns raised about the permit, she said.
 
"I think we need and deserve answers, particularly for a pilot project."
 
Mike Youds.