The Applicants filed an Originating Application for Judicial Review of a Report and Recommendations (“Recommendations”) issued by the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”), and a subsequent Ministerial Order (“Order”) issued by the Minister of Environment and Parks (“Minister”), which required the Applicants to reclaim a private groundwater well located on hotel property in the Town of Strathmore (“Town”).

The well had previously been interconnected with the Town’s municipal water supply and was ultimately designated a “problem water well”. The Director of Regional Compliance cancelled the Applicants’ licence under the Water Act, RSA 2000, c W-3, and ordered the well’s reclamation.

The Applicants appealed the Director’s decisions to the Board. During the appeal, the Board granted the Town intervenor status. The Board found the Town had a tangible interest in the matter, given its role in water supply to its residents and the enforcement of its related bylaws. The Applicants did not appeal the Board’s decision to grant the Town intervenor status. The Board upheld the Director’s decisions and issued Recommendations to the Minister, who accepted them with only a minor, immaterial variation.

The Applicants argued that the Recommendations and resulting Order were unreasonable, asserting the Board misapprehended evidence, considered irrelevant or inadmissible material, misinterpreted the Water Act, and failed to consider that the well had been disconnected from the Town’s system since 2016.

The Director applied to strike the Originating Application as the Town was not served as a directly affected party, as required by Rule 3.15(3)(c). The Director argued the Town was directly affected by the outcome of the Judicial Review by virtue of supplying water to residents, enforcing local water bylaws, and participating as an intervenor before the Board.

The Applicants argued that the well was disconnected from the municipal system in 2016, rendering the Town’s interest remote. They further argued that interpreting Rule 3.15(3)(c) broadly would improperly elevate the Town’s interest above that of individual residents, who they asserted would be more directly impacted by any water safety concerns.

Justice Reed disagreed. Rule 3.15(3)(c) requires service on all persons or bodies directly affected by the Originating Application for Judicial Review. The words “directly affected” must be interpreted restrictively but contextually. Proof of a direct impact on legal rights is not required.

Further, the Court explained the distinction between standing and service: a party seeking intervenor status must demonstrate a potential adverse effect and apply to the Court, whereas service under Rule 3.15(3) is concerned with notice. Therefore, a party may be directly affected, and to service, without having to prove that its rights or interests will be adversely impacted.

Reed J. held that the Town’s role as operator and regulator of the municipal water system demonstrated a tangible and ongoing interest in the Originating Application. Further, although intervenor status is not determinative, the Board’s decision to applying the more stringent Pedersen test in determining that status supported a finding that the Town was directly affected for the purposes of Rule 3.15(3)(c).

The Originating Application was struck for non-compliance with Rule 3.15(3). In the alternative, Justice Reed also dismissed the Judicial Review on its merits.