Appeal Dismissed for Late Filing - Environmental Law Case

2026 ABEAB 14                                                                                                     Appeal No. 25-045 [NAME] Decision Date of Decision – July 6, 2026 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 appeal filed by [NAME] with respect to Water Act [NAME] No. 00475092-00-00 issued to [COMPANY]. by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division Southern Region, [NAME]. Cite as:            [NAME] v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division Southern Region, [NAME], re: [COMPANY]., 2026 ABEAB 14. BEFORE: [NAME], Board Chair. PARTIES: Appellant: [redacted] [NAME]: [COMPANY]., represented by Mr. [NAME]. Director: Mr. [NAME], Director, Regulatory Assurance Division Southern Region, [NAME]. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The [NAME] received a Notice of Appeal from [NAME] (the Appellant) appealing the issuance of a Water Act [NAME] No. 00475092-00-00 (the [NAME]) to [COMPANY]. ([NAME]) by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division Southern Region, [NAME] (the Director).  The [NAME] authorizes [NAME] to “operate a works and to divert up to 205 cubic metres of water per year from the source of water at the point(s) of diversion for the purpose(s) of Agricultural (stock watering)” located in SE-27-46-02-W5M in the County of Wetaskiwin. The Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal after the expiry of the 30-day time limit for the filing of an appeal as specified in the Water Act .  The Board requested the Appellant provide reasons as to why she filed the appeal late and why the Board should extend the time to file the appeal.  The Appellant stated that the “… reason it took so long to appeal this license is because the information took this long to get to me.  …. I am of the view that the license should not have been granted…” and this should be taken into account when the Board makes its decision.  The Board also requested submissions from the Director and [NAME]. The Board considered the parties’ submissions 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.  In the circumstances of this case, the need for certainty outweighs the delay in the information getting to the Appellant. The Board dismissed the appeal. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.     INTRODUCTION .. 1 2.

BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………... 2 3.      Issue .. 4 4.      Submissions . 4 4.1         Appellant 4 4.2         [NAME] 5 4.3        Director 5 4.3         Appellant’s Rebuttal 6 5.      ANALYSIS . 6 6.      ADDITIONAL COMMENTS . 10 7.

DECISION………………………………………………………………………………. 11 1.                INTRODUCTION [ 1 ]                                        This is the [NAME]’s (the Board) decision on [NAME]’s (the Appellant) Notice of Appeal of [NAME] No. 00475092-00-00 (the [NAME]) issued to [COMPANY]. ([NAME]) by the Director, Regulatory Assurance Division Southern Region, [NAME] (the Director). [ 2 ]                                        The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed almost two years after the expiry of the 30-day time limit for the filing of an appeal as specified in the Water Act .  The Board requested the Appellant provide reasons as to why she filed the appeal late and why the Board should extend the time to file the appeal. [ 3 ]                                        The Board considered the parties’ written submissions and has determined the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed out of time and no special circumstances exist to extend the appeal deadline.  The Board dismissed the appeal. [ 4 ]                                        The Board notes that the purpose of the [NAME] is stated as being for “Agriculture (stock watering).”  The Board further notes, the Appellant argued in her Notice of Appeal that the bees being kept by [NAME] were not livestock, and further when the [NAME] was issued there was no contract in place for bees or for livestock.  Therefore, according to the Appellant, the [NAME] was improperly issued. [ 5 ]                                        While the Board dismissed the appeal because the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time, the Board noted the “apiculture” industry, which the Board understands is the agricultural practice of beekeeping, is regulated by the [NAME], much like other types of livestock.  The Board further noted that despite the Appellant’s argument that bees were not livestock, the Board is of the view that there is nothing in the Water Act , RSA 2000, c W-3 (the Water Act ) or the Water (Ministerial) Regulation, Alta. Reg. 205/1998, (the Water (Ministerial) Regulation), that would restrict or prohibit the issuance of an agricultural Water Act [NAME] to [NAME] for purposes of watering bees.

2 .

BACKGROUND [ 6 ]                                        On October 10, 2023, the Director issued Water Act [NAME] No. 00475092-00-00 to [NAME] to “operate a works and to divert up to 205 cubic metres of water per year from the source of water at the point(s) of diversion for the purpose(s) of Agricultural (stock watering)” located in SE-27-46-02-W5M in the County of Wetaskiwin. [ 7 ]                                        Public Notice of the Decision (Public Notice) to issue the [NAME] was posted on October 30, 2023 on the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act , RSA 200, E-12 ( EPEA) and Water Act Public Notices Viewer and the Public Notice was displayed until November 29, 2023. [1]  The Public Notice specified: “Notice is given that on October 10, 2023 [COMPANY]. was issued a [NAME] for the purpose of Agricultural (Stock Watering) located in SE 27-046-02-W5M.”  The Public Notice also indicated that: “Any person who is directly affected by this decision may submit a Notice of Appeal under the Act to the Environmental Appeal Board.  A Notice of Appeal must be submitted no later than 30 days of the providing of this notice….”  (Emphasis in the original) [ 8 ]                                        On February 2, 2026, the Board received a Notice of Appeal from the Appellant appealing the decision by the Director to issue the [NAME].  On page 2 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant indicated the following answer to the question: “On what date and how did you receive notice of [NAME]’ decision?”: “Not sure.  Brought to my attention by our neighbor [NAME] in the spring of 2024.” [ 9 ]                                        On February 3, 2026, the Board wrote to the Appellant and the Director acknowledging receipt of the Notice of Appeal.  The Board also requested the Director to provide the Board with [NAME]’s contact information for notification of the appeal.  In the same letter, the Board also noted the [NAME] was issued on October 10, 2023, and the appeal appears to be filed outside the time limit prescribed in the Water Act which is 30 days.  The Board requested the Appellant to provide in writing by February 17, 2026, her reasons for the extension of time to appeal and provide an explanation as to why the appeal was filed outside of the 30-day time limit.  The Board also advised that the granting of the extension of time is at the discretion of the Board and is not routinely granted.  If the Appellant provided sufficient information to consider extending the appeal period, the Board would give [NAME] and Director an opportunity to provide comments followed by a final opportunity for the Appellant to provide a response before the Board makes its decision. [ 10 ]                                    The Notice of Appeal stated that the reason for filing the appeal was: “There is not need for this [NAME] to [COMPANY]. because (a) bees are not livestock under [NAME]’s Water Act and (2) at the time this application was approved by [NAME], no contract was in place for bees or livestock.” The Board understands from the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, that her understanding of the purpose of the [NAME] is that it was for the watering of bees. [ 11 ]                                    On February 3, 2026, the Board received the Appellant’s submission (the Appellant’s Initial Submission). [ 12 ]                                    On February 4, 2026, the Director provided the Board with [NAME]’s contact information.  On the same day, the Board wrote to the parties acknowledging receipt of the contact information provided by the Director and the Board also notified [NAME] of the subject appeal. [ 13 ]                                    On February 5, 2026, the Board wrote to the parties acknowledging receipt of the Appellant’s Initial Submission as to why the appeal was filed late. [ 14 ]                                    On February 6, 2026, the Board wrote again to the parties and requested the Director and [NAME] provide the Board with their comments by February 13, 2026, on whether the Board should accept the Appellant’s late filed appeal.  The Appellant was also given an opportunity to provide her response to the Director and [NAME]’s comments by February 23, 2026. [ 15 ]                                    On February 12, 2026, the Board received the Director’s submissions (the Director’s Response Submission). [ 16 ]                                    On February 13, 2026, the Board received [NAME]’s submissions ([NAME]’s Response Submission). [ 17 ]                                    The Board did not receive any rebuttal response from the Appellant which was due on February 23, 2026.  In a letter dated March 5, 2026, the Board acknowledged a telephone call between the Board and the Appellant on March 4, 2026, where the Appellant indicated that she would not make any further submissions on whether the Board should accept her late filed appeal .   The Board advised the parties that it would review their submissions and would issue its decision.

3.                Issue [ 18 ]                                    The issue before the Board is whether the Board should extend the appeal period for the Appellant’s late filed Notice of Appeal? 4.                Submissions [ 19 ]                                    The Board has considered the written submissions of the Appellant, the Director and [NAME] and summarized the relevant information for the purposes of this decision below. 4.1                                       Appellant [ 20 ]                                    In the Appellant’s Initial Submission dated February 3, 2026, the Appellant merely stated the following: “ The reason it took so long to appeal this license is because the information took this long to get to me and those obstacles held up my work. I am of the view that the license should not have been granted and I request the Board please consider this when making their decision.  Thank you.” The Board infers that according to the Appellant, the reason the [NAME] should not have been granted is that the bees being kept by [NAME] are not livestock, and further when the [NAME] was issued there was no contract in place for bees or for livestock. 4.2                                       [NAME] [ 21 ]                                    In its email response dated February 13, 2026, [NAME] stated that it agreed with the Director’s Response Submission dated February 12, 2026.  [NAME] added that the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal specifically acknowledged that Appellant became aware of the Director’s decision in the spring of 2024 or almost 2 years before submitting the appeal. 4.3                   Director [ 22 ]                                    In the Director’s Response Submission dated February 12, 2026, the Director argued that sufficient grounds to extend a deadline to appeal require the Appellant to show “special” or “extenuating” circumstances that prevented her from timely filing of her appeal. The Director cited the case of [NAME] v Director, Central Region, [NAME] , re: [COMPANY] , 2011 ABEAB 14, ( [NAME]) which involved the same Appellant and where the Board dismissed the appeal for the Appellant’s failure to demonstrate extenuating or special circumstances that would warrant accepting her appeal filed more than one year beyond the legislated timeframe. [ 23 ]                                    The Director also referenced the case of [NAME] v Director, Northern Region, [NAME], re: [COMPANY] , 2011 ABEAB 6, where the Board held that having timeframes to file an appeal gives certainty to the parties which is a cornerstone to the appeal process. [ 24 ]                                    The Director noted the Appellant’s reason for belatedly filing her appeal.  However, the Director stated that the [NAME] was posted on the EPEA and Water Act Public Notices Viewer on October 30, 2023, until November 29, 2023, pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation , Alta. Reg. 205/1998 .  The Director also stated that on different occasions, he corresponded with the Appellant through email.  For instance, on March 16, 2022, the Director provided the Appellant a link to the EPEA and Water Act Public Notices Viewer and “encouraged her to check the viewer regularly.” [2]  On January 10, 2025, the Director also provided the Appellant with a hyperlink to the [NAME] posted on the EPEA Authorization Viewer. [3] Though not attached to his submission, the Director also submitted that the Appellant has received multiple emails with respect to the [NAME] in January and February 2025 from both [NAME] and the Board. [ 25 ]                                    The Director submitted that the Appellant neither provided information as to what steps she took to timely file her appeal nor provided any extenuating or special circumstances that prevented her from timely filing her appeal.  Thus, the Director submitted the Board should not accept the Appellant’s late appeal. 4.3                                       Appellant’s Rebuttal [ 26 ]                                    The Board did not receive a rebuttal response from the Appellant which was due on February 23, 2026.  As stated, the Board’s letter dated March 5, 2026, acknowledged a telephone call between the Board and the Appellant on March 4, 2026, where the Appellant indicated that she would not make any further submissions on whether the Board should accept her late filed appeal.

5 .                ANALYSIS [ 27 ]                                    After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Board determined the appeal should be dismissed based 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. [ 28 ]                                    In considering the Appellant’s request to extend the appeal period, the Board considers section 116(1) of the Water Act which provides: “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 (ii)     in the case of an approval, receipt of notice of the decision that is appealed from or the last provision of notice of the decision that is appealed from, or (b)     in any other case, not later than 30 days after receipt of notice of the decision that is appealed from or the last provision of notice of the decision that is appealed from.” [ 29 ]                                    As this is an appeal of a Water Act [NAME], section 116(1)(b) applies and provides for an appeal period of 30 days.  The appeal period starts when a person is in receipt of the notice of the decision or the last provision of notice of the decision. [ 30 ]                                    While the legislation has a strict time limit to submit a Notice of Appeal, the Water Act provides the Board with some flexibility to allow for late filed appeals in certain situations.   The Board may, on application under section 116(2) of the Water Act , 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.” [ 31 ]                                    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. [4] [ 32 ]                                    The onus is on the appellant to show that extenuating or special circumstances existed that prevented them from filing a Notice of Appeal within the legislated timeframe. [5]  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. [ 33 ]                                    The Board notes in its earlier decision in [NAME] , which as noted by the Director involved the Appellant, the Board had this to say: “ The legislation has provided the Board with some flexibility to allow for late filed appeals in certain circumstances, but the Board uses this authority in only limited situations.  To allow an extension of time, the Appellant must be able to show that extenuating or special circumstances existed that prevented her from filing within the legislated timeframe.  The onus is on the Appellant to demonstrate there are exceptional circumstances that warrant an extension of time to file an appeal.  The Board may consider extending time limits by a few days in certain circumstances, but the appellant must be able to give the Board sufficient reasons to justify the action.  In the circumstances of this case as presented by the Appellant, an extension of one year cannot be justified. [6] [ 34 ]                                    In  [NAME] ,   the Board further notes, it emphasized the importance of having time limits in the following terms: “ If there were no time limits placed on the appeal period, the applicant for a [NAME] would never know when it could proceed with its project, as there would always be the possibility of an appeal that could result in changes to the [NAME].  [NAME] holders need to know that decisions that are made that affect the way they are required to operate will not be susceptible to continuous change by those wanting to file appeals months or years after the [NAME] was issued.” [7] [ 35 ]                                    In this case, the Public Notice was posted on October 30, 2023, on the EPEA and Water Act Public Notices Viewer and the Public Notice was displayed until November 29, 2023.  The Public Notice stated the Notice of Appeal must be submitted no later than 30 days from the posting of the Public Notice or until November 29, 2023.  However, the Appellant did not file her Notice of Appeal until February 2, 2026, or over two years later. [ 36 ]                                    The Board finds the Appellant did not provide any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the extension of the appeal period.  The Board notes that on page 2 of the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant indicated the following answer to the question: “On what date and how did you receive notice of [NAME]’ decision?”: “Not sure.  Brought to my attention by our neighbor [NAME] in the spring of 2024.” [ 37 ]                                    Regardless of which date (the date the Public Notice was issued, or the date the Appellant’s neighbour brought the Public Notice to her attention) the Board considers as the date the Appellant received notice of the decision to issue the [NAME], the Board finds the Appellant is late in filing her appeal.  There is also evidence to the effect that the Director, on March 16, 2022, corresponded with the Appellant through an email where the Director provided the Appellant a link to the EPEA and Water Act Public Notices Viewer and “encouraged her to check the viewer regularly.” [8]   On the balance of probabilities, the Board finds that the Public Notice posted on October 30, 2023 prevails over Appellant’s uncertainty as to the receipt of the notice of the issuance of the [NAME].  It is not sufficient that the Appellant indicate that she is “not sure” when she received the notice of the decision to issue the [NAME], for the Board to consider a later date upon which to determine if it should extend the time for filing an appeal of the [NAME].  The Board needs a definite date of receipt to start the counting of the appeal period.  Otherwise, the appeal process will be susceptible to claims of uncertainty as to the date of receipt and this would be unfair to all the parties. [ 38 ]                                    The Board is of the view, that the Appellant was given an opportunity to elaborate and support her submission by responding to the Director and [NAME]’s submissions.  Despite this opportunity, Appellant did not bother to support her statement that the “information took long” to get to her.  Even if the Board will accepts the Appellant’s evidence that she came to know of the issuance of the [NAME] from her neighbour in the “spring of 2024”, the Appellant’s filing of the appeal more than two years after the spring of 2024 still fails to convince the Board that she was interested to preserve her right to appeal. [ 39 ]                                    While the Board understands the Appellant’s concerns and her disagreement with the issuance of the [NAME], the Board cannot extend the appeal period unless there are extenuating circumstances that warrant extending the same.  In the case of [NAME] , the Board found that an example of a type of situation where there may be extenuating or special circumstance is where the appellant was in the hospital at the time the notice of appeal should have been filed. [ 40 ]                                    The Board finds the Appellant did not provide any relevant evidence to the Board that indicates there were any exceptional circumstances in this case, and she did not provide any compelling reason to warrant an extension of time to file an appeal.  It is not sufficient for the Appellant to simply state that the information took too long to get to her without more, particularly when the Appellant’s own evidence is that she may have received notice of the decision to issue the [NAME] almost two years prior to filing her Notice of Appeal. [ 41 ]                                    Therefore, the Board dismisses the appeal.

6.                ADDITIONAL COMMENTS [ 42 ]                                    With respect to the Appellant’s argument that “bees are not livestock under the Water Act ,” the Board notes the [NAME] was issued for “the purpose(s) of Agricultural (stock watering).”  The Board further notes that neither “livestock” nor “stock” are defined under the Water Act or under the Water (Ministerial) Regulation.   Moreover, section 11(b) of the Water (Ministerial) Regulation which sets out the purposes for which a water [NAME] can be issued, includes, among other things, “agricultural” purposes, and does not limit the nature or type of agricultural purposes for which a [NAME] may be issued.  It is also noted that the “apiculture” industry, which the Board understands is the agricultural practice of beekeeping, is managed and regulated by the [NAME], [9] much like other types of livestock industries.  Therefore, in the Board’s view, there is nothing in the Water Act nor the Water (Ministerial) Regulation that would restrict the issuance of agricultural Water Act [NAME] to [NAME] for purposes of watering bees.

7 .

DECISION [ 43 ]                                    The Board finds that the statutory prerequisites for filing a Notice of Appeal have not been met as the appeal was filed out of time and no special circumstances exist to extend the appeal deadline.  Therefore, the Board dismisses the appeal. Dated July 6, 2026, at Edmonton, [NAME]. _-original signed-_ [NAME] Board Chair [1]              See Item #1 in Appendix A of the Director’s Submission dated February 12, 2026. [2]              See Item #2 in Appendix A of the Director’s Submission dated February 12, 2026. [3]              See Item #3 in Appendix A of the Director’s Submission dated February 12, 2026. [4]              [NAME] v Director, Regulatory Assurance Division South, [NAME], re: [NAME], 2023 ABEAB 1; [NAME] v. Regional Director, Parkland Region, [NAME] Protection, re: Town of Olds ), 1999 ABEAB 98 ( [NAME] ). [5]              [NAME] v Director, Red Deer-North Saskatchewan Region, Operations Division, [NAME] Development , re: Hutterian Brethren Church of Vegreville , 2014 ABEAB 25, at paragraph 63.  Affirmed following a judicial review at: [NAME] v [NAME] ([NAME]) , 2017 ABQB 311. [6]              [NAME] at paragraph 11. [7]              [NAME] at paragraph 14. [8]              See Item #2 in Appendix A of the Director’s Response Submission dated February 12, 2026. [9]              Bee Act , RSA 2000, c B-2