Environmental reviews are critical to determining land suitability for proposed developments: court
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench quashed the approval of a Crown land lease for a shooting range, citing procedural unfairness, inadequate environmental review, and the omission of key evidence.
The dispute in Gordeyville v Saddle Hills Target Sports Association, 2024 ABKB 649 involved land located in Grande Prairie County, where the Saddle Hills Target Sports Association sought to establish a shooting range. The Gordeyville and Area Community Members Group opposed the lease, raising concerns about environmental impacts, procedural irregularities, and public consultation. The group’s appeal of the lease was largely dismissed by the Public Lands Appeal Board, a decision later confirmed by the Minister of Environment and Parks. This led the applicants to seek judicial review.
The Alberta Court of King’s Bench identified several significant issues in the original decision-making process. It found that the director of the Public Land Disposition Management Section failed to obtain input from a wetland specialist and wildlife biologist, despite the recommendation of a Landscape Analysis Tool (LAT) report to do so. The director had presumed that the absence of responses from these specialists signalled approval. The court ruled this assumption unreasonable, noting that environmental reviews are critical to determining land suitability for proposed developments.
The LAT report also recommended conducting a wildlife survey before issuing the lease. The director did not require the survey, and the Public Lands Appeal Board upheld this decision. The court criticized this finding as arbitrary, pointing out the absence of any justification for disregarding the report’s recommendation. The court further determined that the director’s file lacked sufficient records to support the decision, rendering the administrative process incomplete and unreliable.
In addition to these substantive concerns, the court found breaches of procedural fairness in the appeal process. The Public Lands Appeal Board excluded key reports submitted by the Gordeyville group, including an environmental review and a noise analysis. The court ruled that the exclusion of these reports unfairly limited the group’s ability to present its case. It also noted that the procedural rules governing the appeal were not disclosed to the parties, further undermining the fairness of the process.
As a result, the court quashed the minister’s decision and ordered the matter returned to the Public Lands Appeal Board for reconsideration. It directed the board to address the deficiencies identified in its decision, including admitting the excluded reports and providing a clearer rationale for its findings. The board must also reassess whether the environmental reviews and surveys omitted by the director are necessary for evaluating the lease.
