The lawyer didn’t file the notice of appeal for the Administrative Penalty within the 30 days. Ha Ha! Guess they’re going to have to cough up the money for this one – they appeal every decision but screwed up on this one.

Click to access EAB-EMA-25-A019a.pdf

Summary 

Deep Water Recovery Ltd. appealed an administrative monetary penalty issued on July 17, 2025, under the Environmental Management Act. The appeal was filed on August 19, 2025. The Environmental Appeal Board considered whether the appeal was filed within the mandatory 30-day deadline. Although the appellant argued that the decision was “deemed received” three days after it was emailed under section 133(4) of the EMA, the Board found that the appellant had acknowledged receiving the decision on July 17, 2025. The deeming provision was therefore not engaged. Because the 30-day appeal period began on July 17 and expired before August 19, and because the Board has no authority to extend the deadline, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Overview

Deep Water Recovery Ltd. appealed a July 17, 2025 administrative penalty decision issued under the Environmental Management Act (EMA).

The appeal was filed on August 19, 2025.

The Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) considered whether the appeal was filed within the 30-day statutory deadline.

Key Issue

Was the appeal filed within 30 days of when notice of the decision was given?

If not, the Board had to dismiss it because it does not have authority to extend the appeal deadline under the EMA.

Appellant’s Argument

  • The decision was emailed on July 17, 2025.
  • Under section 133(4) of the EMA, an emailed decision is deemed received on the third day after it is sent.
  • Therefore, the decision should be considered received on July 22, 2025 (their calculation).
  • If so, the August 19 appeal would fall within 30 days.

Board’s Analysis

  • The third day after July 17, 2025 was actually July 20, 2025 (not July 22), applying the Interpretation Act.
  • However, the Board found that:
    • The appellant acknowledged receiving the decision on July 17, 2025 in the notice of appeal.
    • The deeming provision in section 133(4) creates a rebuttable presumption, not an automatic rule.
    • Because actual receipt on July 17 was acknowledged, the deeming rule did not apply.
  • The 30-day appeal period therefore began on July 17, 2025.
  • The appeal deadline was August 16, 2025.
  • The appeal filed on August 19, 2025 was late.

Important Legal Points

  • The Board cannot extend the 30-day appeal period under the EMA.
  • Deeming provisions (like s.133(4)) are legal fictions meant to provide certainty where receipt is unclear.
  • Where actual receipt is known and acknowledged, the deeming provision does not override it.

Decision

The appeal was summarily dismissed under section 31(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act because it was filed outside the statutory time limit.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.