Regarding the “reasons for judgment” issued by Justice

Butler in the recent hearings for the application by WFP for a “stay”

of the LBH

 order.

In this document the Judge makes some important points that I feel

Need to be emphasized, namely that the judge

recognizes the importance of the appeal process Province wide.

I quote from the Judge’s written reasons (Item #20) that WFP states

that the LBH order is in conflict with the Forestry Act. The Judge

states that the 1^st order of business is to determine if there is an

operational conflict. In this case there is a strong disagreement about

this. WFP argues that the order restricts their ability to log and the

Complainants argue that the order permits logging. The Judge goes on to

state “This raises a serious question with regard to an apparent

conflict with rulings or orders of the two regulatory regimes. (MOF vs.

LBH). The Judge then states, “It is a question that may arise in other

watersheds in British Columbia”

The Judge also finds other points of law that in terms of the

“irreparable harm” question and the “balance of convenience” question,

neither WFP nor the Complainants have a strong argument over each

other. In fact it is somewhat equal and the status quo should be

preserved, however the tests to be applied are less for the public

interest vs. the corporate interest, so in an appeal process, the

public interest requires less proof than the proof required for the

corporate interest.

Because of an “error” in crafting the order, the LBH provided an escape

hatch thru which WFP could climb, because by declaring no health hazard

existed on the gentle slopes, the LBH could not under the Health Act

make orders to restrict forest activity where no health hazard existed.

But if the LBH had worded the order along the lines that any small

stream needed protection because these small streams fed into slightly

larger water courses, which eventually fed the larger streams flowing

down the steep slopes where the LBH did find credible evidence of a

health hazard, then the LBH would have made the “link” necessary to

relate the eventual health hazard on the steep slopes, to the

watercourses on the more gentle slopes, linking the two together into

the same health hazard.

If the order had been crafted in this fashion, my feeling from reading

the reasons for judgment, the outcome would have been vastly different

in favor of the LBH.

Read the document and see what conclusions you come up with, given the

Judge’s perception of the issues and note that the Judge states that he

was not going to be involved with the “merits of the appeal” but did

offer his opinion on

 three items.

One of the items that the Judge comments on is the Triton report which

we now know was not prepared by an Hydrologist, but a Biologist, and

the Chief Medical Officer for the Province (Dr Perry Kendall)based his

opinion/decision on this report and stated publicly that there was no

health hazard to drinking water. Founded completely on a report that

was prepared by Triton and which contains serious contradictions

between successive reports produced by Triton.

 Regards

John Bebbington