Date
Geographical Area
North America
Countries
Canada
Case Name
Byron Hills Resources Ltd v Attorney General of Alberta
Case Reference
2009 ABQB 292 (CanLII) (473 AR 71)
Name of Court
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
Key Facts
Both parties submitted a joint Statement of Facts, with the following summary:
Around 23 July 2003, a fire broke out at a campsite owned and operated by the Alberta government near Lost Creek (the Lost Creek Fire). Days later, the fire expanded and began to reach the towns of Hillcrest and Blairmore. The Municipality of the Crowsnest Pass then proclaimed a state of emergency, which was repeated on 2, 9 and 23 August 2003, and then lifted on 26 August 2003. On the 1st of August, 2003, the Government of Alberta decided to start a burn back and took steps to accomplish this by bulldozing trees (fire lines) around and on the plaintiff’s land. By 2 August 2003, the fire had spread to 15,023 hectares and an estimated $11.9 million had been spent to combat the fire. The joint Statement of Facts acknowledged that the Alberta Government had ignited a series of fires on the plaintiff’s land on this day to burn wood. This was done in the hopes of putting out the fire, which was finally accomplished.
Around 23 July 2003, a fire broke out at a campsite owned and operated by the Alberta government near Lost Creek (the Lost Creek Fire). Days later, the fire expanded and began to reach the towns of Hillcrest and Blairmore. The Municipality of the Crowsnest Pass then proclaimed a state of emergency, which was repeated on 2, 9 and 23 August 2003, and then lifted on 26 August 2003. On the 1st of August, 2003, the Government of Alberta decided to start a burn back and took steps to accomplish this by bulldozing trees (fire lines) around and on the plaintiff’s land. By 2 August 2003, the fire had spread to 15,023 hectares and an estimated $11.9 million had been spent to combat the fire. The joint Statement of Facts acknowledged that the Alberta Government had ignited a series of fires on the plaintiff’s land on this day to burn wood. This was done in the hopes of putting out the fire, which was finally accomplished.
Decision and Reasoning
The Court had three issues for determination in this case:
1) Does the Disaster Service Act or the Forest and Prairie Protection Act, R.S.A. F-19, as am S.A.2003, c. 20 apply?
2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to compensation under the applicable Act?
3) If so, who is to pay?
On point 1, the Honourable Madam Justice C.S. Philips noted that there is a contradiction between the two Acts and that, as per the judgment in Sullivan, the Disaster Services Act should apply in this situation since it is the more detailed legislation. On the second point, Justice Philips ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, reasoning that denying their right to be compensated for the loss of trees on their property would be a violation of the Alberta Bill of Rights. Regarding point 3, Justice Philips determined that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the person responsible for compensating the plaintiffs, having determined that the Disaster Services Act applied in this matter.
1) Does the Disaster Service Act or the Forest and Prairie Protection Act, R.S.A. F-19, as am S.A.2003, c. 20 apply?
2) Are the plaintiffs entitled to compensation under the applicable Act?
3) If so, who is to pay?
On point 1, the Honourable Madam Justice C.S. Philips noted that there is a contradiction between the two Acts and that, as per the judgment in Sullivan, the Disaster Services Act should apply in this situation since it is the more detailed legislation. On the second point, Justice Philips ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, reasoning that denying their right to be compensated for the loss of trees on their property would be a violation of the Alberta Bill of Rights. Regarding point 3, Justice Philips determined that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the person responsible for compensating the plaintiffs, having determined that the Disaster Services Act applied in this matter.
Outcome
As a result, under s.19(3) of the Disaster Services Act, the court ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the destruction of mature timber on their lands as a result of the fire started by the Alberta Government on or about 2 August 2003.
Link
Disclaimer
This case law summary was developed as part of the Disaster Law Database (DISLAW) project and is not an official record of the case.
Document
Document