Environmental Appeals Board Reduces Administrative Penalties

2026 ABEAB 10                                                                                             Appeal No. 24-026-D [NAME] Decision Date of Decision – April 24, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF sections 91, 92, 95, and 98 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12; -and- IN THE MATTER OF an appeal filed by [NAME]. of Notice of Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment No. AP-EPEA-DCOM1084 issued under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act by the Director, [NAME], Regulatory Assurance Division, [NAME] to [NAME]. Cite as:            [NAME]. v Director, [NAME], Regulatory Assurance Division, [NAME] , 2026 ABEAB 10. BEFORE: [NAME], Board Chair. SUBMISSIONS BY: Appellant: [redacted] Director: [NAME], Director, [NAME], Regulatory Assurance Division, [NAME], represented by [NAME]. [NAME], Alberta Justice. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [NAME] ([NAME]) issued Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment No. AP-EPEA-DCOM1084 to [NAME]. (the Appellant) for allegedly contravening section 23(1) of the Waste Control Regulation and section 181 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), which is an offence pursuant to section 227(j) of EPEA. Where an offence has been committed, an administrative penalty may be imposed, as well as a one-time economic benefit pursuant to section 237(2)(b) of EPEA. The Appellant is alleged to have contravened the legislation by disposing of waste into water without an approval, code of practice, a registration, and by depositing waste for disposal in a place other than an approved waste management facility. [NAME] assessed an administrative penalty of $6,000.00 and a one-time economic benefit assessment of $183,300.00 (the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment ). The Board received a Notice of Appeal from the Appellant with respect to the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment. A mediation meeting was held, following which the parties continued negotiations. The parties agreed upon a resolution whereby the parties recommended that the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment be varied by reducing the Administrative Penalty to $3,500.00 and reducing the Economic Benefit Assessment to $22,677.00. The Board accepted the agreement and ordered the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment be varied accordingly. The Administrative Penalty is assessed as $3,500.00 and the Economic Benefit Assessment is assessed as $22,677.00. The total payable is $26,177.00. This amount is payable within 30 days of the date of this decision, and no interest is payable for 30 days of the date of this decision. TABLE OF CONTENTS I.       Background.................................................................................................................. 1 II.     discussion....................................................................................................................... 2 III.    Decision............................................................................................................................ 3 IV.    order of the Board................................................................................................... 4 I.                                           Background [ 1 ]                                        [NAME]. (the Appellant) is an internet service provider which installs fiber optic lines to rural Alberta communities. [ 2 ]                                        As part of its operations, the Appellant entered into an access agreement with the [NAME] (the Town) to install a fiber optic network. To lay the fiber optic network, the Appellant needed to expose buried linear infrastructure through hydro excavation (referred to as hydrovacing). Hydrovacing involves using a combination of high-pressure water and vacuum technology to excavate soil. Hydrovac waste is a common term used for the slurry waste (soil and water) created in the sub-surface soil excavation process. The slurry waste may contain material other than soil and water. [ 3 ]                                        The Appellant initially disposed of its hydrovac waste at the [NAME], north of the Town, until the Landfill refused to accept it. The Appellant then entered into an agreement with a private landowner to dispose the hydrovac waste in a dugout located at NE-33-81-2-W6M in the Municipal District of Fairview, Alberta. [ 4 ]                                        On October 6, 2023, an Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) from [NAME] observed the Appellant’s hydrovac truck dumping hydrovac waste into the dugout. The EPO approached the hydrovac truck operator for questioning and inspected the site. [ 5 ]                                        On November 8, 2023, the [NAME]’s [NAME] commenced its investigation on the Appellant’s alleged non-compliances. During the investigation, the Appellant identified that 188 loads of hydrovac waste had been dumped into the dugout. [ 6 ]                                        On December 13, 2024, the Director issued a Notice of Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment No. AP-EPEA-DCOM1084 to the Appellant for contraventions of section 23(1) of the Waste Control Regulation and section 181 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 (EPEA), which is an offence pursuant to section 227(j) of the EPEA. Where an offence has been committed, an administrative penalty may be imposed, as well as a one-time economic benefit pursuant to section 237(2)(b) of EPEA (the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment). The offence is disposing of waste into water except in accordance with an approval, code of practice, a registration, and depositing waste for disposal in a place other than an approved waste management facility. [ 7 ]                                        On January 10, 2025, the [NAME] (the Board) received a Notice of Appeal from the Appellant. The Board acknowledged receipt of the Notice of Appeal in a letter dated January 23, 2025. In the letter, the Board requested the Director to provide the records he reviewed and were available to him when making his decision to issue the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment (the Director’s Record). [ 8 ]                                        On January 30, 2025, the Director wrote the Board advising that the Director’s Record would be available by the week of April 7, 2025. In the same letter, the Director advised the Board that [NAME], would be taking over the file for the appeal due to Mr. [NAME]’s retirement in March 2025. [ 9 ]                                        On April 9, 2025, the Board received the Director’s Record. On April 10, 2025, the Director’s Record was provided to the parties to the appeal in preparation for the scheduled mediation meeting. [ 10 ]                                    On June 10, 2025, a mediation meeting involving the parties and a Board appointed mediator was held by way of video conference. After the mediation, the parties engaged in further mediation discussions and provided the Board with status updates. [ 11 ]                                    On April 1, 2026, the Board canvassed the parties’ availability for a follow-up mediation between May 11-22, 2026. On the same day, the Board was notified by the Director that the parties had reached an agreed upon resolution to reduce the Administrative Penalty from $6,000.00 to $3,500.00 and to reduce the Economic Benefit Assessment from $183,300.00 to $22,677.00. II.                                        discussion [ 12 ]                                    In the negotiated agreement, the parties recommended to the Board that the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment be varied by reducing the Administrative Penalty to the amount of $3,500.00 and the Economic Benefit Assessment to the amount of $22,677.00. [ 13 ]                                    The Board considered the agreement acceptable and varies the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment according to the agreement reached between the parties.

III.                                    Decision [ 14 ]                                    Based on the agreement between the parties, the Board varies the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment as follows:

1.                   Reducing the Administrative Penalty from the amount of $6,000.00 to the final amount of $3,500.00. Count 2 ($2,500.00) and the Factor to Vary the Assessment (+$1,000.00) from the assessment form will remain the same. Count 1 (2,500.00) from the assessment form will no longer be included;

2.                   Reducing the Economic Benefit Assessment from the amount of $183,300.00 to the final amount of $22,677.00;

3.                   Reducing the total Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment from the amount of $189,300.00 to the final amount of $26,177.00;

4.                   The Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment amount is to be paid within 30 days of the date of this decision; and 5.                   No interest is payable for 30 days from the date of this decision. [ 15 ]                                    Pursuant to section 98(3) of EPEA, [1] a copy of this decision is to be provided to: 1.                   [NAME]., represented by [NAME], [COMPANY]. 2.                   [NAME], Director, [NAME], Regulatory Assurance Division, [NAME], represented by [NAME]. [NAME], Alberta Justice. IV.                                     order of the Board [ 16 ]                                    In accordance with sections 98(1) and (2) of EPEA, the Board has the authority to confirm, reverse, or vary the decision of the Director. [2] Therefore, with respect to the decision of the Director to issue the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment No. AP-EPEA-DCOM1084 , the Board orders the decision of the Director to issue the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment is varied as follows:

1.                    The Administrative Penalty is reduced to $3,500.00. Count 2 ($2,500.00) and the Factor to Vary the Assessment (+$1,000.00) from the assessment form will remain the same. Count 1 (2,500.00) from the assessment form will no longer be included.

2.                    The Economic Benefit Assessment is reduced to $22,677.00.

3.                    The total Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment amount payable is $26,177.00.

4.                    The Appellant shall within 30 days of the date of this decision pay the Administrative Penalty of $3,500.00 and the Economic Benefit Assessment of $22, 677.00, for a total of $26,177.00.

5.                   No interest is payable for 30 days from the date of this decision.

6.                    Upon payment of the Administrative Penalty and Economic Benefit Assessment, the Appellant shall withdraw its Notice of Appeal. Dated April 24, 2026, at Edmonton, Alberta. “ original signed by ” [NAME] Board Chair [1]                     Section 98(3) of EPEA states: “(3)        On making its decision, the Board shall immediately (a)           give notice of the decision to all persons who submitted notices of appeal or made representations to the Board and to all other persons who the Board considers should receive notice of the decision, and (b)           make the written decision available in accordance with the regulations.” [2]                    Section 98(1) and (2) of EPEA provides: “98(1)    In the case of a notice of appeal submitted under section 91(1)(n) or (o) of this Act or a notice of appeal submitted under section 115(1)(j), (l) or (q) of the Water Act , the Board shall, within 30 days after the completion of the hearing of the appeal, make a written decision on the matter. (2)          In its decision, the Board may (a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed and make any decision that the Director whose decision was appealed could make, and (b) make any further order the Board considers necessary for the purposes of carrying out the decision.”