This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island (Trial Division).

Mr. Lidstone purchased soil from a farmers’ co-op and used it to fill in an empty foundation on property that he owned. Roughly two months letter, an Environmental Protection Officer at the Department of Fisheries and Environment was notified that the soil that Mr. Lidstone had put in the foundation contained potato waste, and that an abandoned well was located on the same site. The Environmental Protection Officer investigated the site and confirmed the presence of potato waste, then notified the Department of Technology and Environment.

After a representative of the Department of Technology and Environment investigated the site, the Department sent a letter to Mr. Lidstone requesting that the soil be removed from the site. When Mr. Lidstone did not carry out the request, the Department of Fisheries and Environment issued a Ministerial Order that ordered Mr. Lidstone to remove the soil and take other actions if necessary. When Mr. Lidstone did not carry out the Department’s instructions, he was charged with failure to comply with the Ministerial Order. At the hearing of the charge, which he did not attend, he was convicted and fined.

After he was convicted, Mr. Lidstone applied for judicial review of the Ministerial Order, arguing that the Minister fettered his discretion (applied the rules too rigidly when he had the discretion to act more liberally) and failed to give reasons for his decision. The Court held that the Minister did not fetter his discretion and that the Minister was not legally obliged to give reasons for his decision. The Court also noted that the Minister had actually given ample reasons for his decision, despite the fact that he had no legal obligation to do so. Mr. Lidstone’s application was therefore denied.

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/pe/pesctd/doc/1999/1999canlii4643/1999canlii4643.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.