Preliminary and Final Decisions

Ernest James Glassford v. Resource Manager Ray Raatz

Decision Date:
November 24, 2016
File Numbers:
Decision Numbers:


Decision Date: November 24, 2016

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Forest and Range Practices Act – ss. 51(1)(b), 52(1), 71, 74; Administrative Tribunals Act – s. 17(2); Crown range land; range development; unauthorized fence; remediation order; administrative penalty; consent order

Ernest James Glassford appealed a determination issued by the Resource Manager (the “Manager”), 100 Mile House Resource District, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (the “Ministry”). The Manager determined that Mr. Glassford had contravened sections 51(1)(b) and 52(1) of the Forest and Range Practices Act when he cleared young Crown timber without authorization and built a fence on Crown land without authorization. The Manager levied an administrative penalty of $750 against Mr. Glassford for the two contraventions, and issued a remediation order requiring him to remove the fence, seed the cleared area with grass, and remove debris piles which posed a fire hazard.

Mr. Glassford appealed the determination on the basis that he wanted to keep the fence in place. He submitted that the fence made it easier for him and his neighbour to manage their cattle, and his neighbour supported the construction of the fence.

On November 24, 2016, before the appeal was heard, the parties negotiated a conditional resolution of the appeal. Mr. Glassford agreed to abandon the appeal with respect to the contraventions and the administrative penalty, and to pay the penalty by December 15, 2016. With respect to the remediation order, the parties agreed to suspend the appeal for three months, during which time Mr. Glassford must comply with the requirements to seed the cleared area and remove fire hazards. The parties also agreed that, during the three-month suspension, Mr. Glassford would take reasonable steps to request that the adjacent range tenure holders apply for a permit to keep the fence. At the expiry of the three-month period, Mr. Glassford would advise the Commission and the Manager whether the permit had been granted, and confirm whether he had complied with the remainder of the remediation order. Upon completion of those requirements, the remediation order would be rescinded by consent. However, if the permit was denied or the remainder of the remediation order was not complied with by the end of the three-month period, the Commission would, on the Manager’s request, hold a hearing regarding the remediation order.

Accordingly, the Commission issued an interim consent order pursuant to section 17(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.