Decision on dam appeal expected in December

FORT FRANCES—Appellant Allan T. Bedard and CEP Local 92 should find out in the next month whether they’ll get a hearing with the Ontario Municipal Board or whether their appeal of Abitibi-Consolidated’s proposal to separate the power dam here will be dismissed.
“I think we gave the best presentation that we could,” Bedard said late Friday after a videoconference at Contact North at the Confederation College campus here.
“I think some evidence was given here that they’ve got to weigh and they’ve got to weigh it seriously.
“I think [CEP Local 92] president [Thorrot] Cox put some final dibs on this thing, which will allow them to really think about what’s going to happen here,” he added, referring to some testimony offered by Cox during Friday’s proceedings.
“Hopefully, they give some merit to having a community appeal hearing in Fort Frances,” continued Bedard. “I think we’ve done all we can. I think [lawyer] Ken [Stuebing] did an excellent job.”
“I think it went as well as it could have,” said Stuebing, of the Toronto law firm Caley Wray. “I’m confident the board heard us and are taking our submissions very seriously.
“It’s on the table for them to consider now.”
The purpose of Friday’s videoconference was to argue whether the OMB should give Bedard a hearing based on his appeal, or approve a motion put forward by Abitibi to dismiss it.
The application of objection was filed in August by Toronto law firm Caley Wray, representing appellant Bedard with the support of the Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 92.
This was made in response to a set of 11 applications from Abitibi-Consolidated—all of which had to do with separating the mill’s power-generating assets from its pulp and paper assets here, which first went before the town’s committee of adjustment in July.
Stuebing and Abitibi lawyer John Alati spent the entire day Friday arguing whether the OMB should grant an appeal hearing or whether the OMB should approve the company’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
“We’re looking for a hearing because the Planning Act requires the decision-maker, when considering applications such as the ones Abitibi has brought forward, to consider certain matters of provincial interest,” said Stuebing.
“The act itself requires that the decision-maker have regard for the protection and economic well-being of the province and its municipalities, as well as adequate provision of employment opportunities.
“As well, the efficient development of land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the province and the municipalities over the long-term,” noted Stuebing.
“These interests are all engaged under the act under the current structure. When the committee of adjustment is considering an application to sever, these kinds of interests come into play, and the basic point of our appeal is these considerations were not given robust reflection and consideration at the hearing,” he added.
“A hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board would give CEP Local 92 an opportunity to address these issues, to have them fleshed out a little bit more, to see whether or not Abitibi’s applications are, in fact, in the provincial interest, as the board is required to consider.”
Meanwhile, Alati said Bedard’s appeal should be dismissed for two primary reasons.
Firstly, Bedard didn’t make an oral or written submission to the committee of adjustment prior to it approving Abitibi’s applications—or to town council prior to it approving the committee’s decision.
Bedard also failed to give in his affidavit a “reasonable explanation” as to why he didn’t make such submissions, charged Alati.
Secondly, Alati said Bedard does not provide “land use planning grounds” in his affidavit, meaning Bedard hasn’t presented any issue with zoning or official plans—just an objection to Abitibi splitting off a separate hydro-generating asset.
Bedard charged in his affidavit he believed this split would result in the new trust company selling power back to the mill at a higher rate, in turn making the mill non-competitive—jeopardizing jobs and possibly resulting in closure.
Alati noted Bedard’s objection was “speculative” and “based on assumptions,” as well as based on “economical concerns” and not speaking to whether or not the property severances represent “good and effective planning.”
After both sides made their closing remarks, OMB chair Norman Jackson said board would contact both parties with a decision “within a month, if not sooner.”
“We’ll give it very deep consideration,” said Jackson.(Fort Frances Daily Bulletin)