Private Parties Not Liable For Public Interest Costs

As detailed elsewhere on this blog ( here and here), courts are becoming increasingly resistant to attempts by third parties, specifically environmental non-governmental organizations ("ENGOs", ) to insert themselves in permitting processes and judicial reviews where they are not directly involved and add no relevant expertise. The recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Gagne v. Sharp is a further example of this trend.  This case included the additional wrinkle of an attempt by the ENGOs involved to have their court costs covered by the private company on the basis that they were acting in the "public interest".

Background

In Gagne, several individuals and ENGOs applied for standing before the Environmental Appeal Board (the "EAB") to appeal a permit amendment granted to Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. The EAB denied the petitioners standing because they were not persons aggrieved within the meaning of s. 100(1) of the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003,