Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (“Canfor”) appealed a stumpage advisory notice and two stumpage adjustment notices issued by the Timber Pricing Co-ordinator. Canfor argued that the Timber Pricing co-ordinator erred by not allowing a silviculture allowance cost. Canfor requested that the Commission refer the notices back to the Timber Pricing Co-ordinator with directions to re-determine the stumpage rates by adding the silviculture cost allowance. Canfor alternatively asked that it not be required to establish a free growing stand on openings greater than one hectare in area.
The Commission found that the Bark Beetle Regulation requirement to establish free growing stand on areas of one hectare or greater did not apply, based on the facts of the case. The Commission also found that where there is no silviculture obligation in legislation or cutting authority documents, it would be unreasonable to interpret the District’s approval on Rate Request Forms to constitute imposition or confirmation of a silviculture obligation on a licensee. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that there was no pre-existing obligation on Canfor to perform basic silviculture on the areas that were harvested. The Commission upheld the decision of the Timber Pricing Co-ordinator to remove the silviculture cost allowance, and confirmed the stumpage determinations.