Keywords:Forest Act – s.49, s.53, s.76, s.77, s.130, s. 140, s.141; Re British Columbia (Ministry of Forests) (B.C.S.C.); Nisga’s Tribal Council v. Environmental Appeal Board et. al. (B.C.S.C.); Wiswell et. al. v. the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg (S.C.C.); Re Bay Village Shopping Centre Ltd. and City of Victoria (B.C.C.A.); notice requirements.
Mr. Foley appealed the suspension and cancellation his woodlot licence. The licence was cancelled due to his failure to pay monies owed to the Crown in accordance with the licence. His main ground of appeal was that the notices of suspension and cancellation had not been properly served upon him and were not served on his managing forester. He also argued that the cancellation was defective because the other two licensees, Mary Ann and Timothy Foley, were not properly served with the notices.
The Board found on the facts that the notices were properly served on Mr. Foley according to sections 76 and 77 of the Forest Act – he signed for one notice and the other was deemed to be served under the Act. The Board found there was no legal duty to serve the managing forester. The Board also determined that rights to procedural fairness, including notice, were individual rights and that Mr. Foley had no standing to assert a possible breach of other individuals’ right to notice (i.e. Mary Ann and Timothy). The Board found on the facts that, if the other two licensees had wanted to appeal the cancellation and suspension on the basis of lack of notice, they could have done so. The Board dismissed the appeal.