Preliminary and Final Decisions

Jocko Creek Land and Timber Ltd. v. Government of British Columbia

Decision Date:
April 12, 2006
File Numbers:
2005-FA-108
Decision Numbers:
2005-FA-108(a)
Disposition:
APPEAL ALLOWED

Summary

Decision Date: April 12, 2006

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords:  Sivert Smith Andersen and Shawn Andersen v. Government of British Columbia; Interior Appraisal Manual – s. 6.3.1; stumpage advisory notice; stumpage billing records.

Jocko Creek Land and Timber Ltd. (“Jocko”) appealed a Stumpage Advisory Notice (“SAN”) issued for a Cutting Permit (“CP”) for a woodlot located in the Southern Interior Forest Region.  The stumpage rate was set at $25.44/m3 for the period of August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006.  In determining the stumpage rate, the Timber Pricing Coordinator (the “Coordinator”) applied the district average stumpage rate pursuant to section 6.3.1(1)(b) of the Interior Appraisal Manual (“IAM”).  Jocko submitted that the Ministry was inconsistent and unfair in its application of the appraisal policy for stumpage rates for woodlot licensees and that section 6.3.1 of the IAM was applied incorrectly.

After the parties had made their submissions, Sivert Smith Andersen and Shawn Andersen v. Government of British Columbia (Decision No. 2005-FA-109(a), March 6, 2006) (“Andersen”) was released by the Commission, which related to the application of section 6.3.1 of the IAM.  The Commission allowed Jocko’s request for an amendment to the Notice of Appeal to consider the Andersen decision when making its finding.  The Commission adopted the reasoning in Andersen, in which it found that stumpage adjustment records can be applied when determining stumpage rates pursuant to section 6.3.1 of the IAM.

The Commission found that there had been adjustments during the relevant time period that would be relevant to determining the stumpage rate for the CP in question.  The Commission further found that, as per Andersen, the adjustments to that CP constitute a weighted average sawlog stumpage rate and section 6.3.1(1)(a) of the IAM should, therefore, apply when determining the stumpage rate for the CP at issue in the appeal.

The Commission referred the matter back to the Coordinator to redetermine the stumpage rate.  Based on section 6.3.1(1)(a) of the IAM, and the stumpage adjustment records available for the CP, the Commission found that the stumpage rate for the period in question should be $5.07/m3.

The appeal was allowed.