GFL asks county to dismiss remedial orders

By Sharon McLeay Times Contributor

GFL Environmental Inc.’s lawyer, Stephen Roberts, boldly asked Wheatland County to dismiss remedial orders against GFL and cancel the review meeting held in council chambers on Aug. 20.
Roberts justified his request by maintaining that GFL was confused by the court ruling delivered on Aug. 9 at the Court of Queen’s Bench in Calgary by Master Justice L. Bernette Ho. He also said they hadn’t received a written copy of the ruling.
Justice Ho delivered an oral judgment on Aug. 9; however, Justice Ho went on holidays before she could review and sign off on the transcription of that ruling. She is back from holidays in September.
“We need some clarity provided by Justice Ho with respect to those issues, and in respect to the issues of this review application, which still exists,” stated Roberts. “It is on a court file, and it will still proceed eventually, as soon as possible we hope. We need her advice and directions as to what we should do next, as we apparently are not able to agree.”
The ruling upheld the stop order issued by Wheatland County and denied GFL rights to pursue a judicial review with the subdivision development appeal board. In a separate ruling, Justice Ho stayed Wheatland County access to the facility and access to GFL documents, stating they should have inspected the facility before the stop order.
There was no mention if Wheatland County advised Justice Ho that access to the facility was repeatedly denied, or if the county will appeal for access to assess and clean up the site.
Wheatland County also asked GFL to provide the county with a series of reports: progress reports on removal and processing of legacy piles, monitoring results of the leachate pond, control and development of an air monitoring program, implementation of an odour contingency response plan, operational reports, and ground water and odour management reports.
Roberts downplayed those types of requests from Wheatland County, stating they filed relevant reports with Alberta Environment.
On legal advice, county council agreed the review should continue.
Roberts presented a memory lane summary of interactions between GFL, Neighbours Against Pollution (NAP) and Wheatland County over the last eight years, referencing various interactional documents exchanged by the parties and Alberta Environment.
“While they were not able to meet all the requests from NAP, they were dedicated to maintaining a positive relationship with Wheatland County and its residents,” said Roberts.
He maintained that the contentious drywall and sulphur piles were no longer on-site, and litter and other concerns had been resolved. Later he admitted in discussing another document from June 2019, GFL asked for 20 more months to dispose of the legacy piles. He downplayed the presence of plastic in the piles because Alberta Environment showed no concerns.
He discounted that any of the practises constituted a nuisance and disputed the amount of processing times needed to remove the piles. He also qualified that the facility falls under agricultural designations.
“My friend on a number of occasions has stretched some of the definitions, by arguing the legacy piles are neglected by GFL,” stated Roberts.
He suggested that their legacy piles are processed as fast as possible.
Roberts mentioned several times that past problems referenced have no relevance to the remedial orders served, and maintained that the company updated residents and the county, and addressed concerns. He discredited correspondence sent in 2019 by Wheatland County CAO Brian Henderson with his interpretation of evidence in cross-examination transcripts in the case, which he felt proved assertions were not factual or credible.
Henderson had only recently taken on the role of interim CAO, so he could not truthfully and personally answer some of the questions posed. There was no mention of questioning the county’s previous CAO.
Roberts contested the deadline of seven days to register a review. In correspondence, Wheatland administration gave them a 14-day deadline; he stated that he interpreted that as a waiver of deadline.
Roberts concluded that the county was overstepping in its requests and had no jurisdiction over the site. He considered the requests of the county to access the GFL site repeatedly being denied by the company were only to obtain evidence that GFL were contravening terms of their registration. He suggested the county was challenging landowner rights over demands to access the property and modify activity and conditions on the property.
Roberts stated that it was imperative for everyone that property rights and freedoms are upheld. His main premise was that there was no need to comply to county regulations because they followed requirements under Alberta Environment registration.
Roberts stated that they would not change any actions until Justice Ho gave them direction.