Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Bennett Environmental Inc., 2005 FCA 261 (CanLII)
This case was heard in the Federal Court of Appeal.
In 2003, Bennett Environmental Inc. was granted approval to construct a High Temperature Thermal Oxidizer facility that would treat and remediate contaminated soil. In 2004, the New Brunswick Minister of the Environment announced that he intended to refer the facility to a review panel so that potential transboundary effects between New Brunswick and Quebec could be considered. Bennett Environmental appealed the Minister’s referral, arguing that because the construction stage was nearly complete, the point at which the facility could be reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act had already passed. The company also argued that the Minister had not made his decision through the proper channels, and had acted unreasonably and unfairly.
The Court held that the Minister had made his decision in an acceptable way, but it agreed that it was too late for the Minister to refer the facility to a review panel. The Court declined to address the questions whether the Minister had acted unreasonably or unfairly.
Bennett Environmental appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. After considering the decision of the lower court, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. Although it agreed that the Minister’s decision to refer the facility to a review panel should be quashed, it overturned an additional order that the Federal Court had made—namely, that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency would be prohibited from proceeding with a review.
To read about this case in the Federal Court, go to Bennett Environmental Inc. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment), 2004 FC 1150 (CanLII).
View the Decision on CanLII: www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2005/2005fca261/2005fca261.html
Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case.
If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.