Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

Alberta’s highest court has told the province’s Environmental Appeals Board that it should have listened to wider public concerns before allowing an energy services company to dispose of radioactive waste in a landfill.

The Court of Appeal of Alberta decision could force the province to consult more broadly and relax rules that critics say restrict who can speak at public hearings, said a lawyer who argued the case.

“The court’s message is clear and strong,” said Shaun Fluker of the University of Calgary’s Public Interest Law Clinic. “There is a role for public engagement and public participation in the decision-making that takes place.”

Story continues below advertisement

Prof. Fluker was representing a British Columbia-based company called Normtek Radiation Services. In 2016, Normtek filed an objection with Alberta’s Environmental Appeals Board over a proposal by Secure Energy Services of Calgary to accept radioactive oil field waste at its site west of Edmonton.

The arm’s-length board deals with appeals to decisions made under the province’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.

Normtek offers radioactive decontamination as one of its services and presented a long list of concerns. It said Secure’s proposal didn’t measure radioactivity adequately and failed to track radiation exposure for workers and groundwater.

It said Secure would accept oil field waste that was significantly more radioactive than any other landfill in Canada.

Normtek also suggested Secure’s permit application was being considered despite Alberta having no regulations for disposal of that type of waste.

Secure disputed the claims in documents filed with the appeals board.

The board never considered any of Normtek’s concerns. It ruled that because the company was based in B.C., it didn’t meet the test of being directly affected by Secure’s plans. Normtek was considered to have no standing.

Story continues below advertisement

The Appeal Court called that restrictive, artificial and unreasonable.

“The board misinterpreted the law,” the Dec. 11 judgment said. “The law is simply that standing is a preliminary matter to be dealt with, if it can be, at the outset of the proceeding. Sometimes it cannot be.”

Prof. Fluker said the court struck down a standard that the Environmental Appeals Board and the Alberta Energy Regulator have been using for years.

“This is a long-standing and widespread issue,” he said.

Prof. Fluker notes the appeals board used the question of standing to dismiss 200 statements of concern filed over an application to sell water from the Rocky Mountains. And the energy regulator has cancelled public hearings on energy projects after none of the interveners met the standing test.

Gilbert Van Nes, the board’s general counsel, said the body will reconvene to consider whether Normtek should have standing. If Normtek is successful, the board will consider its concerns in a hearing that could affirm, change or revoke Secure’s permit.

Story continues below advertisement

“The Court of Appeal’s decision has suggested that we need to be broader in looking at the types of interest that can create standing,” said Mr. Van Nes, who added the board hears about 100 cases a year.

Secure has been operating under its permit since 2016. Mr. Van Nes said it comes up for renewal in March.

An Alberta Environment spokeswoman said the department is reviewing the ruling.

We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies