Appeal Dismissed Due to Untimely Filing

2026 ABEAB 2                                                                                                  Appeal No. 24-020-D [NAME] Decision Date of Decision – January 15, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF sections 91, 92, and 95 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12, and section 115 of the Water Act , RSA 2000, c W-3; -and- IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by [NAME] with respect to the decision of the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME], to issue Enforcement Order No. EO-WA-37540 to [NAME]. Cite as:            [NAME] v. Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] , re: [NAME] , 2026 ABEAB 2. BEFORE: [NAME], Chair. PARTIES: Appellant: [redacted] Director: [NAME], represented by [NAME], Environmental Law Section, [NAME]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [NAME] issued an enforcement order (the Order) under the Water Act to [NAME] (the Appellant) with respect to unauthorized [NAME] affecting a watercourse on [NAME] owned by the Appellant in Wheatland County ([NAME]). The Order required the Appellant to cease all unauthorized activities on [NAME] and to submit to [NAME] by September 30, 2024, a plan to restore the impacted watercourse to its condition prior to construction of the unauthorized [NAME]. The Board received an appeal from the Appellant and a request for a stay of the Order. The Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal after the expiry of the seven-day time limit for the filing of an appeal of an enforcement order as specified in the Water Act . The Board requested the Appellant provide reasons as to why he filed the appeal late and why the Board should extend the time to file the appeal. The Board considered the Appellant’s response and the legislation. The Board determined that the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that extenuating circumstances prevented the Appellant from filing the Notice of Appeal on time. While the Board accepts that Amendment No. 6 was sufficiently different from the original version of the Order as to effectively constitute a new Order, it was issued April 22, 2024. The Board would have accepted an appeal filed within 7 days of April 22, 2024. However, the Appellant did not file his Notice of Appeal with the Board until October 25, 2024, some five months later. The Board dismissed the appeal. As the appeal was dismissed the Board did not consider the Appellant’s request for a stay. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.      INTRODUCTION .. 5 2.

BACKGROUND .. 5 3.      issues . 10 4.      Appellant’s submissions . 10 5.      ANALYSIS . 16 6.

DECISION .. 21 1.                                          INTRODUCTION [ 1 ]                                        These are the Environmental Appeal Board’s (the Board) reasons for its decision regarding the Notice of Appeal and request for a stay filed by [NAME] (the Appellant) of an enforcement order under the Water Act , RSA 2000, c. W-3 (the Water Act ), issued by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME] to the Appellant. [ 2 ]                                        The Board requested the Appellant provide written reasons as to why the Appellant filed the appeal late and why the Board should extend the time to file the appeal. [ 3 ]                                        The Board considered the Appellant’s response and the legislation and determined the Appellant did not provide evidence to demonstrate extenuating circumstances which prevented the Appellant from filing the Notice of Appeal on time. [ 4 ]                                        The Board dismissed the late-filed appeal. As the appeal was dismissed, the Board did not consider the Appellant’s request for a stay of the Order.

2.

BACKGROUND [ 5 ]                                        On April 6, 2023, the Director issued Water Act Enforcement Order No. EO-WA-37540 (the Order) to the Appellant for unauthorized [NAME] (the [NAME]) affecting wetlands and a watercourse on [NAME] owned by Appellant in Wheatland County ([NAME]). The Order stated that several wetlands and a watercourse had been impact by land stripping and grading alterations. The Order further required that the Appellant cease all unauthorized activities on [NAME] and retain a professional wetlands expert (the Authenticating Professional) to provide a detailed assessment of the impacted wetlands and watercourse and recommendations for its restoration or replacement (the Wetland Assessment Report and Proposal). [ 6 ]                                        The Board notes that the Director that issued the Order was [NAME]. On September 23, 2024, the Appellant was notified that [NAME] replaced [NAME] as the Director in respect of the Order. For purposes of this decision with respect to matters occurring prior to September 23, 2024, a reference to the “Director” or the “previous Director” shall mean a reference to [NAME] and from September 23, 2024, to the date this decision, a reference to the “Director” shall mean a reference to [NAME]. [ 7 ]                                        Between May 26, 2023, and March 22, 2024, the Order was amended five times extending certain deadlines for submitting information and reports to [NAME] ([NAME]). [ 8 ]                                        On September 13, 2024, the Appellant was charged with four counts of committing an offence under Water Act, Water (Ministerial) Regulation , and Water (offences and Penalties) Regulations. [1] [ 9 ]                                        On March 21, 2024, the Appellant’s expert, [NAME] (Westen) issued a Wetland Assessment Report which determined that there were no wetlands at the location of the [NAME]. The report found the [NAME] impacted an ephemeral watercourse (the Watercourse). [ 10 ]                                    On April 15, 2024, the Order was amended for a sixth time to reflect that there were no wetlands impacted by the [NAME] and that the [NAME] impacted the Watercourse present on [NAME] (Amendment No. 6). Clause 6 of the Order was amended to replace the requirement that the Appellant provide to [NAME] a Wetland Assessment Report and Proposal with the requirement the Appellant provide [NAME] a Water Body Restoration Plan which included a plan to restore the Watercourse to its condition prior to construction of the [NAME] (the Water Body Restoration Plan). The Water Body Restoration Plan had to be submitted to the Director by September 30, 2024. [ 11 ]                                    On April 22, 2024, the Appellant through his legal counsel emailed the previous Director stating that the Appellant was considering seeking an extension of the time to file an appeal of the Order and requested a meeting with the previous Director to discuss if the Order could be resolved in a way that would mitigate unnecessary environmental disturbance and cost by not requiring the Appellant to remove all the infrastructure on [NAME] prior to applying for an approval and potentially reinstalling the structures. The previous Director responded that she was open to discuss the Order. [ 12 ]                                    On April 25, 2024, the Appellant’s legal counsel met with the previous Director to discuss the requirements of Amendment No. 6, and the Appellant stated the previous Director indicated that: 1.                   [NAME] would consider a Water Body Restoration Plan that did not require restoration of the Watercourse to pre-[NAME] condition; 2.                   [NAME] had concerns regarding the height of the culverts; 3.                   [NAME] wanted recontouring of the Watercourse and some reseeding of [NAME]; and 4.                   [NAME] would amend the Order such that a Water Act approval was not required to complete the Water Body Restoration Plan work. [2] [ 13 ]                                    In August of 2024, the Appellant retained [NAME] of [NAME] to provide a surface water assessment of [NAME], and to understand the scope of the work required to design a Water Body Restoration Plan. [3] [ 14 ]                                    On September 20, 2024, the Appellant requested the Director extend the deadline for the Appellant to provide a Water Body Restoration Plan into early November to allow the Director to consider and discuss with the Appellant the Water Body Restoration Plan that was being prepared by [NAME]. [ 15 ]                                    On September 20, 2024, the Appellant requested [NAME] extend the date for compliance with the Order from September 30 into November. [ 16 ]                                    As previously noted, on September 23, 2024, the Appellant was notified that [NAME] replaced [NAME] as the Director in respect of the Order. [ 17 ]                                    Between September 25 and October 3, 2024, the Appellant and Director discussed the request of the Appellant to extend the date for compliance with the Order as well as the additional request of the Appellant that the Order be amended so that the Appellant was not required to return the Watercourse to its pre-[NAME] condition. [ 18 ]                                    On September 27, 2024, the Director advised the Appellant that: “After conferring with [NAME] [[NAME]] is accepting of an extension/amendment to the enforcement order (EO) until November (do you prefer the 15 th or 30 th ?) for the submission of the Water Body Restoration Plan. I will get the official EO amendment sent out next week sometime but by sending this email [NAME] now does not need to meet the September 30, 2024 deadline as specified in Amendment #6 but rather the November timeline.” [ 19 ]                                    On September 30, 2024, the Appellant provided the Director with [NAME]’s preliminary assessment report (the “[NAME]”). [ 20 ]                                    On October 2, 2024, the Director made a site visit to [NAME]. [ 21 ]                                    On October 3, 2024, the Director wrote to the Appellant confirming that the impacted area must be restored to its pre-[NAME] condition. The Director stated that he had sent the [NAME] to [NAME]’s [NAME] and that [NAME]’s [NAME] did not agree with [NAME]. The Director stated: “The work completed by [NAME] can be defined as an activity under the Water Act , which was carried out without prior authorization and may also require the need for a Water Act Licence. As such the impacted area should be restored back to its [sic] pre-disturbance condition. It should also be noted that while there [sic] may be disagreements on the classification of the waterbody (wetland vs. watercourse vs. Ephemeral draw, etc.) all of these definitions are considered water bodies under the Water Act. Given that the report does not address any plan for restoration of the water body, the [[NAME]] believe that the order should still be in effect and a plan to restore should be submitted and implemented. I fully agree with this position. I might also add that yesterday [NAME] made it clear to [NAME] that he did not plan to make the changes needed to restore the water course to its [sic] pre-disturbance condition.” [ 22 ]                                    On October 3, 2024, the Director wrote to the Appellant confirming that the Appellant was in non-compliance with Clause 6 of the Order but that [NAME] but would not take steps to enforce the Order until November 30, 2024. [ 23 ]                                    On October 18, 2024, the Appellant advised the Board that the Appellant had received an enforcement order on October 3, 2024, and that the Appellant intended to appeal. [ 24 ]                                    On October 24, 2024, the Board received a Notice of Appeal of the Order from the Appellant together with a request the Board extend the time in which to file the Notice of Appeal and a request for a stay of the Order. The Notice of Appeal did not reference an enforcement order received by the Appellant on October 3, 2024. [ 25 ]                                    On November 1, 2024, the Board requested the Appellant provide a copy of the enforcement order received on October 3, 2024 (that was referred to by the Appellant’s email in the Appellant’s email of November 18, 2024) as it was not included in the Notice of Appeal received by the Board. [ 26 ]                                    On November 4, 2024, the Appellant clarified that it was only appealing the Order and in his email of October 18, 2024, the Appellant was referring to a letter from the Director to the Appellant dated October 3, 2024, not a separate enforcement order. [ 27 ]                                    On November 6, 2024, the Board acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and requested the Appellant provide further reasons for requesting the extension of the time to appeal the Order. The Board noted that the Appellant had advised he was issued an enforcement order on October 3, 2024. The Board further noted the only correspondence received by the Board dated October 3, 2024, was a letter from [NAME] to the Appellant (the “October 3, 2024 Letter”) not an enforcement order. The Board stated that if the Appellant wished the Board to consider the October 3, 2024 Letter as an enforcement order, the Appellant should provide argument as to why the letter contained a new requirement that was so significant it should be considered a new order. The Board noted that letters of direction and amendments are not normally appealable. The Board also requested the Director advise if the Director was prepared to consent to the issuance of a stay or would undertake not to enforce the deadlines contained in the Order. The Board also set a process for the Appellant to make an application for a stay should the Director advise the Board that the Director did not consent to a stay or that the Director would not undertake to not pursue the terms of the Order. [ 28 ]                                    On November 13, 2024, the Director advised the Board that the Director was of the view it was premature for the Director to provide its position on a stay request because an application for a stay was only available to the Appellant if the Board had determined the appeal was validly before the Board. [ 29 ]                                    On November 13, 2024, the Appellant provided the Board submissions regarding the Appellant’s request that the Board extend the time for appeal. The Appellant also advised it was not appealing the October 3, 2024 Letter. [ 30 ]                                    On November 14, 2024, the Appellant requested that the Board grant a stay prior to determining whether the appeal process will proceed. [ 31 ]                                    On November 20, 2024, the Board found that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellant was filed outside the legislated seven-day time limit for filing an appeal of an enforcement order, and the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of extenuating circumstances that prevented him from filing the appeal on time. The Board dismissed the appeal. As the Board dismissed the appeal, the Board did not consider the Appellant’s application for a stay. 3.                                          issues [ 32 ]                                    The two issues before the Board are:

1.                   Whether the Board should extend the appeal period for the Appellant’s late-filed Notice of Appeal? 2.                   Should the Board grant a stay of the Order? 4.                                          Appellant’s submissions [ 33 ]                                    The Board notes that the Appellant provided submissions regarding the late filing of the Notice of Appeal of the Order and submissions regarding its request for a stay. As the Board dismissed the appeal, the Board did not consider the Appellant’s request for and submissions regarding the stay. [ 34 ]                                    The Appellant submitted the Order related to earthworks conducted by the Appellant, impacting an ephemeral stream on [NAME], so as to address longstanding erosion and flooding issues, and to facilitate livestock operations. [ 35 ]                                    The Appellant stated [NAME] issued the Order on April 6, 2023, based on a report received by [NAME] that the [NAME] had impacted one or more wetlands. [ 36 ]                                    The Appellant submitted that the Order was appealable under section 115(1)(p)(iv) of the Water Act [4] and that section 116(1)(a) of the Water Act requires an appeal of an enforcement order must be filed within seven days after receipt. [5] The Appellant further submitted that the Board has the discretion under section 116(2) of the Water Act to extend the time period within which a Notice of Appeal may be filed if the Board is of the opinion there is sufficient grounds to do so. [6] The Appellant stated the Board may exercise this discretion if the Appellant can demonstrate there were exceptional circumstances that caused them to file a late Notice of Appeal, or an extension would be required to maintain natural justice and fairness principles, provided the extension does not negatively impact other parties or the environment. [ 37 ]                                    The Appellant stated that [NAME] made a substantive amendment to the Order when it was determined that the [NAME] did not impair wetlands, which was the basis on which the Order was originally issued. The Appellant noted that after the Order was issued, the Appellant’s expert, [NAME], determined that there was an ephemeral water body at the location of the [NAME] on [NAME] not a wetland. It was the Appellant’s view that the Director accepted [NAME]’s conclusions regarding the ephemeral water body because the Director subsequently issued Amendment No. 6 which amended Clause 6 to require the Appellant to submit to the Director a Water Body Restoration Plan “in which the impacted Watercourse is restored to its respective condition prior to the construction of the [NAME].” [7] [ 38 ]                                    The Appellant submitted that he had incurred significant time and costs to address [NAME]’s concerns with respect to the impact of the [NAME]. The Appellant argued that he had tried to work with [NAME] and had provided evidence to [NAME] that addressed [NAME]’s concerns and demonstrated removal of the [NAME] was not necessary. The Appellant further argued that [NAME] would not consider the evidence provided by the Appellant’s expert, [NAME]. The Appellant believed that [NAME] had taken an unreasonable position which imposed financial and emotional hardship on the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that if the [NAME] were removed from [NAME], the Appellant would have to remove three culverts and soil that was placed on [NAME] to address erosion, flooding issues, and to facilitate livestock operations. [ 39 ]                                    The Appellant argued that the significant changes to the requirements of the Order and to [NAME]’s expectations over time, and the unnecessary financial burden that the Order imposed on the Appellant were special circumstances that warranted an extension of the time to appeal. The Appellant submitted an extension was required to maintain natural justice and fairness principles and would not negatively impact other parties or the environment. [ 40 ]                                    The Appellant noted that in April of 2024, the Appellant’s counsel met with the previous Director to discuss the requirements of Amendment No.

6. The Appellant submitted at that meeting, [NAME] indicated that [NAME] had concerns regarding the height of the culverts installed as part of the [NAME] and required the Appellant complete certain recontouring and reseeding. However, the Appellant submitted [NAME] was willing to consider a Water Body Restoration Plan that would not necessarily include a full restoration of the Watercourse. [8] [ 41 ]                                    Based on the representations of the previous Director, the Appellant stated in August 2024 that he retained [NAME] to provide a surface water assessment of [NAME] to assess the impacts of the [NAME] and to understand the scope of work required to design a Water Body Restoration Plan. [NAME] prepared the [NAME] which was provided to [NAME] on September 30, 2024. [ 42 ]                                    The Appellant submitted the [NAME] found there was no significant, or any, adverse impact of the [NAME] on downstream water users and the [NAME] may have a beneficial impact on water availability. The Appellant argued the findings of [NAME] provided a strong basis to have the Order dismissed or amended to not require the removal of the [NAME]. [ 43 ]                                    The Appellant submitted [NAME]’s position changed significantly between the spring and fall of 2024, and [NAME] now requires full restoration of the Watercourse. The Appellant argued that [NAME] appear to disagree with [NAME] and did not provide the [NAME] due consideration. The Appellant noted [NAME] did not identify who the [NAME] were that reviewed the [NAME]. [ 44 ]                                    The Appellant further submitted that the reason that [NAME] was requiring full restoration of the Watercourse was that the Appellant had carried out the [NAME] without a Water Act authorization. The Appellant argued he was subject to an ongoing environmental prosecution regarding charges laid in connection with the [NAME] and the failure to seek a Water Act authorization prior to conducting the [NAME] was fully addressed by the environmental prosecution. The Appellant asserted the purpose of the Order was to address the environmental risks from the [NAME] not the failure to seek a Water Act authorization. [ 45 ]                                    The Appellant argued based on the principles of natural justice and as a matter of public policy an extension of time to appeal was required. The principles of natural justice entitle a party to know the case they must meet. The Appellant argued he was not provided a fair process because of [NAME]’s change regarding the enforcement of Clause 6 of the amended Order and [NAME]’s reference to the lack of an approval under the Water Act as the basis for enforcing Clause 6. [ 46 ]                                    The Appellant also argued that it was in the public interest not to enforce the appeal deadline. The Appellant submitted he had not delayed in pursuing the appeal but had instead focused on working with [NAME] and that it was not until the Director took a firm position on the enforcement of Clause 6 of the amended Order that the appeal became ripe. The Appellant argued that he should not now be prejudiced because in good faith he had tried to work with [NAME]. As well, the Appellant submitted that the [NAME] showed that it was not in the best interest of the environment or the public interest to strictly enforce the appeal deadline as the [NAME] had improved the availability of water in the area. [ 47 ]                                    The Appellant submitted the totality of the circumstances rise to the level of exceptional and the Board should exercise its discretion to extend the time in which the Appellant may file an appeal of the Order. The Appellants submitted that if he is unable to appeal the Order and the Order was enforced, he has and will continue to suffer adverse impacts as follows: 1.                   the Appellant has incurred and continues to incur significant expert and legal costs; 2.                   the Appellant will be unable to undertake his planned livestock operations as there will be no source water, and it is not economically viable to return the farm to grain operations. The Appellant believes it may result in the Appellant’s bankruptcy; 3.                   the Appellant has not been able to address erosion on [NAME] because the Order required the Appellant to cease the [NAME]; 4.                   the Appellant will incur additional significant costs to prepare the plan required by Amendment No. 6 and to implement the plan; 5.                   if the ephemeral water course is returned to pre-Work condition, the Appellant will have to continue to deal with the erosion that was addressed by the [NAME]; and 6.                   if the excavated surface features are removed from [NAME], the [NAME] concluded that it was likely there would be a negative impact on water availability. [9] [ 48 ]                                    In response to the Board’s request that the Appellant consider the decision of the [NAME] of King’s Bench in [NAME] v [NAME] ([NAME]), 2017 ABQB 311 (“ [NAME] ”), the Appellant stated that [NAME] confirms that the Board will consider whether the evidence demonstrates extenuating or special circumstances such that there are sufficient grounds for the Board to exercise its discretion under section 116(2) of the Water Act and extend the appeal period. The Appellant argued that [NAME] is distinguishable on its facts from the circumstances currently before the Board. [ 49 ]                                    The Appellant argued the facts of [NAME] are not analogous to the Appellant’s case as the appellant in [NAME] was appealing a Water Act approval not an enforcement order. [NAME], the Appellant submitted there was no third party involved in the current matter that would be prejudiced should the Board grant an extension of the appeal period. The Appellant further argued there is no environmental harm taking place in connection with the Order, there was no imminent risk to the environment or human health and [NAME] would not be prejudiced by an extension of the appeal timeline. [ 50 ]                                    The Appellant submitted the circumstances before the Board were not a simple failure of the Appellant to raise concerns within the applicable time period, as was the case in [NAME]. The Appellant argued that he had focused on working with [NAME] to address [NAME]’s concerns and had contacted [NAME] within seven days of the issuance of Amendment No. 6 to discuss the requirements of Amendment No. 6 and to advise that the Appellant was considering an appeal. The Appellant submitted that it was his understanding that [NAME] would not strictly require him to remove the [NAME] or render them ineffective, so the Appellant decided to work in good faith with [NAME] and not file an appeal. [ 51 ]                                    The Appellant submitted that he did not delay in pursuing an appeal because it was not until he received the October 3, 2024 Letter that he had a fulsome or accurate understanding of the requirements of the Order. [ 52 ]                                    The Appellant argued the facts of the current matter were similar to the facts considered by the Board in [NAME] v Director, Northern Region, Operations Division, [NAME] Development, re: [NAME] & [COMPANY]. (7 June 2013), Appeal no. 12-047-D (AEAB) (“ [NAME]”) and [NAME] v Director Central Region, Operations Division, [NAME] Development, re: [COMPANY]. (11 October 2012), Appeal No. 12-013-ID1 (AEAB) (“ [NAME] ”) where the Board extended the time to file a Notice of Appeal. The Appellant submitted that the Court in [NAME] commented that both [NAME] and [NAME] were distinguishable from [NAME]. In both [NAME] and [NAME] was aware of the appellants’ concerns within the relevant appeal period and in [NAME] the appellant had met with [NAME] within the relevant appeal period to express concerns and schedule a follow-up meeting with respect to those concerns. The Appellant submitted the current circumstances were like [NAME] and [NAME] because [NAME] was aware of the Appellant’s concerns following the issuance of Amendment No. 6 through the provisions of the [NAME] and discussions between the Appellant’s counsel and [NAME]. [ 53 ]                                    The Appellant further argued that the Court in [NAME] indicated that the harshness of the outcome of a decision, having regard for all the circumstances, is a factor that goes to the reasonableness of a decision and may be considered by the Board. The Appellant submitted the Order placed a significant burden on the Appellant should the appeal be denied, and it was not in the best interest of the environment or the public interest to strictly enforce the appeal deadline. [ 54 ]                                    The Appellants submitted that the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. [NAME] 2019 SCC 65 (“ [NAME] ”) noted that “[e]lements of the legal and factual contexts of a decision operate as constraints on the decision-maker in the exercise of its delegated powers.” [10] This includes the decision-maker’s statutory scheme, the evidence before it, its prior decisions and the potential impact of the decision on the subject individual. The Appellant argued in this case the strict enforcement of the statutory appeal deadline would result in severe consequences to the Appellant by requiring the completion of significant and expensive work that was not necessarily in the best interest of the environment.

5.                                          ANALYSIS [ 55 ]                                    After reviewing the Appellant’s submission, the Board determined the appeal should be dismissed on two grounds: 1.                   the Appellant did not meet the legislated time limit for filing the Notice of Appeal; and 2.                   the Appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the Board to grant an extension of time. Further, as the Board dismissed the appeal, the Board did not consider the Appellant’s request and submissions regarding a stay of the Order. [ 56 ]                                    Section 116(1)(a)(i) of the Water Act provides a time period for filing an appeal of an enforcement order of not later than seven days after receipt of the order. The Board may, on application under section 116(2), extend the time period for filing a Notice of Appeal if the Board is of the opinion there are sufficient grounds to do so. Section 116(2) of the Water Act states: “The [NAME] may, on application made before or after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (1), extend that period, if the Board is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds to do so.” [ 57 ]                                    While the legislation has a strict time limit of seven days to submit a Notice of Appeal, the Water Act also provides the Board with some flexibility to allow for late-filed appeals in certain situations. The Board uses this authority only in exceptional circumstances. The Water Act includes time limits for filing an appeal to provide a level of certainty to the appeal process and to balance the interests of the parties. The Board will not exercise its discretion to extend the time limit unless an appellant can demonstrate there were exceptional circumstances that caused the Notice of Appeal to be filed late. [11] [ 58 ]                                    The onus is on th e appellant to show that extenuating or special circumstances existed that prevented them from filing a Notice of Appeal within the legislated timeframe. [12] While the Board is not bound by the formal rules of evidence that bind the courts, there must be a factual basis for its decisions. The Board cannot extend the appeal period without a valid reason for doing so. [ 59 ]                                    The Order was issued April 6, 2023. The Order stated that several wetlands and a watercourse had been impacted by the [NAME] and the Appellant must retain an Authenticating Professional to provide a Wetland Assessment Report and Proposal. The seven-day period to file a Notice of Appeal of the Order began to run after the Appellant received a copy of the original Order. The Appellant stated he did not recall when he received the original Order but did recall discussing it with his legal counsel at the time. [13] [ 60 ]                                    The Order was subsequently amended six times. The first five amendments extended certain deadlines relating to information and reports that were to be provided by the Appellant to the Director. The sixth amendment, Amendment No. 6, was issued on April 15, 2024, amending Clause 6 of the Order to require the Appellant to provide a Water Body Restoration Plan to restore the Watercourse to its condition prior to construction of [NAME] rather than a Wetland Assessment Report and Proposal. [ 61 ]                                    While the right to appeal an amendment of an enforcement order is not expressly included in section 115(1) of the Water Act , the Board has three circumstances it considers appropriate to hear an appeal of an amendment of an enforcement order: 1.                   where an amendment significantly increases the consequences of the enforcement order on the party named and served with the order; 2.                   when an amendment, in substance, amounts to a new enforcement order; and 3.                   where an amendment adds a new party to an enforcement order. [14] [ 62 ]                                    The Board is of the view that Amendment No. 6 significantly increased the consequences of the Order to the Appellant as it required the Appellant to return the Watercourse to pre-[NAME] condition. In substance, Amendment No. 6 amounted to the issuance of a new enforcement order and accordingly, the period within which the Appellant could file an appeal of Amendment No. 6 was seven days after the Appellant received a copy of the amendment. [15] The Appellant has provided evidence that within seven days of the issuance of Amendment No. 6, on April 22, 2024, the Appellant through his counsel emailed the previous Director expressing concern with the terms of the Order, requesting a meeting with [NAME] to discuss the requirements of the Order and stating that the Appellant was considering seeking an extension of time to file an appeal of the Order. The Appellant also provided evidence that the Appellant’s counsel met with the previous Director on April 25, 2024. However, the Appellant did not file his Notice of Appeal with the Board until October 25, 2024, some five months later. [ 63 ]                                    The Appellant argued that he did not file a Notice of Appeal until such time as the Director, on October 3, 2024, took a firm position that the Watercourse must be restored to its pre-[NAME] condition. The Appellant argued that the appeal had not become ripe as [NAME] had represented that they would work with the Appellant to come to a resolution that did not require restoring the Watercourse to pre-[NAME] condition. The Appellant argued that if the Order is enforced, he would suffer significant economic and emotional consequences. [ 64 ]                                    The Board finds the Appellant did not provide any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the extension of the appeal period. Unlike the appellants in [NAME] and [NAME] upon which the Appellant relied, the Appellant was aware of the strict seven-day deadline within which a Notice of Appeal must be filed after receipt of an enforcement order. Despite indicating the intent to seek an extension of the time to file an appeal on April 25, 2024, there is no evidence, as in [NAME] , that the Appellant attempted to comply with, or exceptional circumstances prevented the Appellant from complying with, the seven-day limit for filing a Notice of Appeal either after the receipt of Amendment No. 6 or after receipt of the October 3, 2024 Letter which is the date the Appellant submitted the appeal was ripe. [ 65 ]                                    While the Board acknowledges that no prejudice arises if the time period to file an appeal of the Order was extended, the legislated appeal process must be fair to all parties. As stated by the Board in [NAME] v.  Director, Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region, Operations Division, [NAME] Development,  re:   [NAME] , 2014 ABEAB 25 : “[69]    … The appeal period cannot continuously change unless there are extenuating circumstances that warrant extending the time period. [70]      One of the purposes of having deadlines incorporated into legislation is to bring some element of certainty to the regulatory process… The time limit in which an appeal must be filed is stipulated in the legislation so that all parties know when the process is complete.” [ 66 ]                                    The Appellant also argued , based on [NAME], that the Board must consider that strict enforcement of the statutory appeal deadline would result in the Appellant being required to complete significant and expensive work that was not necessarily in the best interest of the environment. While the environmental mandate of the Board requires the Board to consider the public interest in appeals before the Board, the public interest in the impact of the Order on the environment goes to the subject matter of the appeal and is an issue upon which the Appellant and the Director do not agree. The issue before the Board in the current application is whether the Appellant met the statutory requirements when filing its Notice of Appeal and if not, whether there is a sufficient factual basis upon which the Board can extend the appeal period. [ 67 ]                                    The Board acknowledges the financial and emotional hardship incurred by the Appellant and appreciates the efforts of the Director and the Appellant to find a mutually acceptable resolution of the matters covered by the Order. The Board notes that if the Appellant was of the view that until receipt of the October 3, 2024 Letter that the Director had agreed that the Appellant would not be required to comply with the Order and restore the Watercourse to pre-[NAME] condition, the Appellant could have, as requested by the Board in its letter of November 6, 2024, provided the Board argument as to why the October 3, 2024 Letter contained a new requirement that was so significant it should be considered a new enforcement order with a new seven-day time limit for filing a Notice of Appeal. However, the Appellant advised the Board that it did not consider the October 3, 2024 Letter a new enforcement order. Further, as previously noted, the Board was of the view that Amendment No. 6, in substance, amounted to the issuance of a new enforcement order and despite advising the Director of its intention to seek an extension of the time to file an appeal of the Order on April 22, 2024 (which was within seven days of the issuance of Amendment No. 6), the Appellant waited until October 25, 2024 to file his Notice of Appeal of the amended Order. [ 68 ]                                    The terms of the Order clearly stated that the Appellant was required to provide a Water Body Restoration Plan to [NAME] by September 30, 2024, which included a plan to restore the Watercourse to its condition prior to construction of the [NAME]. The Appellant’s belief that the Director would not require compliance with the terms of the Order, does not change the substance of the Order without evidence of an amendment in that regard. The Water Act does not require the Director to confirm his intention to require compliance with the terms of an enforcement order to make the order ‘ripe’. [ 69 ]                                    The Board finds the appeal was filed outside the time period and the Appellant did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that extenuating circumstances existed that prevented him from filing his appeal on time. Therefore, the Board will not extend the appeal period, and the appeal is dismissed. As the Board dismissed the appeal, the request by the Appellant of a stay of the Order will not be considered. [ 70 ]                                    While the Director and the Appellant may disagree as to the impact of the [NAME] on the environment, the Board acknowledges the Appellant was trying to be involved in developing a resolution of the matters that are the subject of the Order. Although the appeal has been dismissed, the Board encourages the Appellant and the Director to continue discussions to help resolve these issues.

6.

DECISION [ 71 ]                                    The Board denies the request for an extension of the timeline for the Appellant to file his Notice of Appeal of the Order, and therefore the Board dismisses the appeal [ 72 ]                                    The Board will not consider the Appellant’s request for a stay as the Board has dismissed the appeal. Dated on January 15, 2026, at Edmonton, [NAME]. -original signed- __________________ [NAME] Board Chair [1]              [NAME], Affidavit, October 21, 2024, ([NAME]), at paragraph 35. [2]              [NAME], at paragraph 22. [3]              [NAME], at paragraph 24. [4]              Section 115(1)(p)(iv) of the Water Act states: “115(1) A notice of appeal under this Act may be submitted to the [NAME] by the following persons in the following circumstances: … (p) the person to whom an enforcement order is directed, if the Director issues an enforcement order directing … (iv)          the removal or otherwise rendering ineffective of any [NAME] or obstruction;” [5]              Section 116(1) of the Water Act states: “116(1) A notice of appeal must be submitted to the [NAME] (a) not later than 7 days after (i) receipt of a copy of a water management order or enforcement order, or …” [6]              Section 116(2) of the Water Act states” “(2) The [NAME] may on application before or after the expiry of the period referred to in subsection (1), extend that period, if the Board is of the opinion there are sufficient grounds to do so.” [7]              [NAME] at paragraph 17 to paragraph 19. [8]              [NAME] at paragraph 22. [9]              [NAME] at paragraph 38 to paragraph 44. [10] Appellant’s Submissions, November 13, 2024, at page 5, citing [NAME] at paragraph 105. [11]            [NAME]  v.  Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME],  re : [NAME]  (10 January 2023), Appeal No. 22-090-D (AEAB), 2023 ABEAB 1 .   O’Neill  v . Regional Director, Parkland Region, [NAME] Protection,  re:  Town of Olds (12 March 1999), Appeal No. 98-250-D (AEAB), 1999 ABEAB 98. [12]            [NAME] at paragraph 63. [13]            Appellant’s Notice of Appeal at paragraph 1. [14]            [NAME]  v.  Director, Compliance, Boreal North Region, [NAME] ,  et al.  (20 May 2022),  Appeal  Nos. 20-066-068 and 21-002-007-D (AEAB), 2022 ABEAB 20 at paragraph 59. [15]            Section 116(1) of the Water Act provides in part: “116(1) A notice of appeal must be submitted to the [NAME] (a)                  Not later than 7 days after (i)                   Receipt of a copy of a water management order or enforcement order; …”