Docket LA95022
Order LA96-05

IN THE MATTER of an appeal by certain concerned citizens of Meadow Bank and Clyde River against a decision by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Attorney General, dated July 24, 1995.

BEFORE THE COMMISSION

on Friday, the 8th day of March, 1996.

John L. Blakney, Vice-Chair
James Nicholson, Commissioner
Anne McPhee, Commissioner

Order

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Discussion

3. Findings

4. Disposition

Appearances & Witnesses

1. For the Appellants

Witnesses:
Paul Baglole
Mike Hennessey
Allan MacLean
Samantha Lutwick
David Ramsay
Jean MacLean
Cathy Daley

2. For the Developer

Legal Counsel:
Barbara Stevenson

Witness:
David MacPhail

3.    For the Department

Witnesses:
Albert MacDonald
Kingsley Lewis
Don Walters
John Pickard

Reasons for Order

1. Introduction

This is an appeal under Section 28 of the Planning Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. P-8, by certain concerned citizens of Meadow Bank and Clyde River (the Appellants) against a decision by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Attorney General (the Department) to approve in principle an application by David MacPhail (the Developer) to subdivide part of a 43 acre parcel of land (Provincial Property Number 228593) into 19 single family dwelling lots. The property is located in Meadow Bank and borders on Route 265 and the Clyde River.

According to the application the existing land use is "farm" and the proposal is to convert part of the property to a single family residential subdivision.

In accordance with the Planning Act and the Planning Act Regulations, the Minister of Provincial Affairs and Attorney General has the authority to approve proposals for the subdivision of land.

The following summarizes, in chronological order, the significant events that resulted in the filing of this appeal.

On May 25, 1994, David MacPhail applied for approval to subdivide the subject property.

On October 24, 1994, the Department notified David MacPhail, by letter that the application to subdivide was denied (Exhibit D10). This decision was based on a Departmental policy dated September 15, 1994. The policy stated inter alia, that within any area lying within three miles of the proposed Cities of Charlottetown and Summerside or the proposed Town of Charlottetown West all subdivision applications requesting approval of more than one residential building lot per existing parcel shall be considered to precipitate premature development.

On November 7, 1994, David MacPhail appealed the decision of the Department to The Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission (the Commission). The Commission heard the appeal on January 10, 1995, in Charlottetown.

On March 14, 1995 the Commission issued Order LA95-02. In its decision, the Commission quashed the decision of the Minister and directed the Minister to reconsider the application.

On July 24, 1995 John Pickard notified David MacPhail by letter that the application to subdivide 19 single family dwelling lots was approved in principle. (Exhibit D28)

On August 13, 1995 certain concerned citizens of Meadow Bank and Clyde River appealed this decision to the Commission.

The Commission heard the appeal on October 24, 1995 in Cornwall and on November 21, 1995 at the Commission hearing room.

2. Discussion

A.    The case for the Appellants may be summarized as follows:

The letter of appeal indicates that the concerned residents involved in this appeal are from the Community of Meadow Bank and the Community of Clyde River. Their expressed concerns include: the welfare and future of the Clyde River and the West River; unnecessary premature development which will place undue pressure on the province and the taxpayers of the communities affected; and, the negative impacts of urban development within the rural area.

In presenting their case before the Commission the Appellants relied on several sections of the Planning Act Regulations and argued the proposed subdivision did not comply with these provisions.

The Appellants called upon several witnesses to give evidence as to how the proposed development was premature and how it would impact on the rural area. Issues and concerns raised by these witnesses can be summarized as follows:

  • The traffic from the proposed 19 lot subdivision would create safety problems.

  • The area consists of class 2 and 3 lands which should not be disturbed.

  • Complaints to local farmers from non-farm residents living in subdivisions have greatly interfered with the farmers "right-to-farm". Non-farm residents have complained about spraying of chemicals, spreading manure, and the noise associated with running machinery too early in the morning and too late at night. Also, there are general nuisances that are experienced with increased non-farm residences such as damage to property and crops from trespassers who are generally unaware that they are creating a nuisance. One witness, a local farmer, described a situation where he had received complaints about the operation of a hay dryer and had to regulate his hours for operating the unit.

  • Farmers are experiencing problems involved in moving farm machinery from one area to another and since farm land is being consumed by subdivisions, it is necessary for farmers to travel greater distances to obtain land for cultivation.

  • The Appellants contended that because there is a significant amount of undeveloped land and serviced residential lots within the Town of Cornwall, the proposed subdivision should be considered premature from a market perspective. The Developer has not demonstrated that there is a need for this development.

  • The Appellants also argued that the Minister did not give adequate consideration to the report prepared by Kingsley Lewis (identified as Exhibit D25) which recommended the proposed subdivision be denied. The Appellants believed that the large subdivision would eventually place an unnecessary demand on urban type services that would not be there if the subdivision were not allowed.

The Appellants argued that the Minister erred in approving this subdivision and requested the Commission to allow their appeal and quash the Minister's decision.

B.    The case for the Developer may be summarized as follows:

The Developer argued that the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements as set out in the Planning Act Regulations.

The Developer contended that the test for prematurity is difficult and abstract and that the conclusion of Kingsley Lewis was based on the implications of the "buffer zone" and should not have been considered. In addition, legal counsel for the Developer argued that the Developer should not be burdened with the test to satisfy prematurity when other developers have not been subjected to this test for over the last twenty years.

The Developer requested the Commission deny the appeal and confirm the decision of the Minister.

C.    The case for the Department may be summarized as follows:

Upon receipt of the subject application for subdivision, the Department distributed the application to the Departments of Environmental Resources and Transportation and Public Works. In addition, and as part of its routine, the Department forwarded a copy of the application to the Community of Meadow Bank for comment.

The review by the Department of Transportation and Public Works indicated that the location of the access point from the 19 lot subdivision to the road could not meet sight distance standards. After subsequent alterations to the design of the subdivision, the access was relocated to an acceptable location.

The Department of Environmental Resources, in a memorandum to John Pickard from Alfie Wakelin dated June 1, 1994, stated that before the Department can complete its assessment, the following additional information is required:

Groundwater section requires the Developer contracting the services of a consultant to determine groundwater quality and quantity for servicing the entire property…

Engineering and Utilities Section requires the Developer contracting the services of a consultant to provide a report on the suitability of the site for on-site sewage disposals systems…

Rivers and Estuaries Section requires a 60 foot buffer adjacent to watercourse and during construction measures must be taken to prevent silt from entering watercourse…

On behalf of the Community of Meadow Bank, Brian Dollar submitted the following comments:

Proposed road to extend past Colin MacPhail's gate. Access has been changed to meet Transportation Public Work's design (Exhibit D5).

The Department submitted that the Minister gave consideration to the evaluation prepared by Kingsley Lewis and a memorandum prepared by Albert MacDonald (Exhibit D26) and decided to approve the plan in principle.

The Department submitted that a number of non-farm residents have already located on the road (Route 265) and in close proximity to the location of the proposed subdivision. The ability for those residents to locate in the community is because local farmers decided to subdivide their land. Mr. Pickard pointed out that if the objectives contained in Part 1 subsection E. of the Regulations were applied strictly and without flexibility many of the single-family dwelling lots that have been allowed along the road would not have been permitted.

Part I subsection E states:

E.    Subdivision Along Highways

The intent of Part VI (subdivision of land adjoining highways) is to supplement the subdivision and building regulations in relation to development along highways. The objectives are:

a)    to strictly limit access to major highways in order to preserve them for rapid movement of people and goods and to protect the health and safety of the traveling public;

b)     to control "ribbon" development on all highways outside the boundaries of towns and communities while permitting a landowner to create at least one lot.

On the issue of prematurity, the Department argued that although the Regulation regarding premature development exists, the Department has not invoked this Regulation to deny an application for some time. Therefore, to now invoke this Regulation to deny this application would not be fair and equitable.

In addition, the Department added that although there was a temporary policy in effect to not accept applications to subdivide more than five lots from agricultural properties, the subject property is within the coastal area and was dealt with under the Coastal Area Regulations which allow subdivisions up to 20 lots in a first phase of development.1

The Department contended the Developer has not completed the subdivision approval process and must satisfy the requirements of the Department of Environmental Resources to ensure that all lots can be adequately serviced with individual wells and sewage disposal systems before final approval is given.

The Department submitted that the appeal should be denied.

3. Findings

After considering all the evidence presented and after reviewing the provisions of the Planning Act and the Planning Act Regulations, it is the decision of the Commission to deny the appeal. The reasons for the Commission's decision are as follows:

Based on the evidence presented during the hearing the Commission understands that the subject property is approximately 43 acres in size and is located in Meadow Bank on Route 265, approximately 2.3 kilometers from the Town of Cornwall. The land use in the area is characterized as predominantly agriculture with a number of non-farm single family residences located in the immediate vicinity of the site of the proposed subdivision. Land adjacent to the north and south boundary of the subject parcel is under cultivation and the land to the east is partially forested, with a scattering of residential single family homes. The western boundary of the property borders the Clyde River. Exhibits D25 and D30 illustrate the characteristics of the land base in the immediate area to the subdivision location.

The Developer proposes to subdivide a portion of the 43 acre parcel for single family dwelling use (Exhibit D2). The plan of subdivision was for a 19 lot subdivision and at the suggestion of the Department of Transportation and Public Works, the Developer incorporated an additional 33 lots into the design (Exhibit D5).

In general, the Appellants' case focuses on Part I - Statement of General Planning Principles and Policies and the provisions of Section 25 of the Planning Act Regulations. Their argument—based on witnesses and substantive evidence—is that the proposed subdivision is contrary to the principles and policies as set out under Part I and the Minister should have determined that it was premature and refused permission to subdivide.

On occasion the Commission has considered the meaning of premature development with respect to the Planning Act Regulations. It is a concept difficult to define - some argue that prematurity is a market derived concept where the law of supply and demand should dictate the number of lots that should be on the market at any given time, considering the location of these lots in relation to rate of purchase and development. By example, the Appellants in this case submitted that there is an abundant supply of lots available within the Town of Cornwall (approximately 200 serviced lots and an additional 530 acres of land available for subdivision) and any new subdivisions in this area should be considered premature. In addition, one resident farmer argued that this development is also premature since it will result in taking the land out of agriculture or resource production unnecessarily and that once built on it can never be returned to agricultural land. To counter these perspectives, the Developer argued that there was a demand for the lots and therefore the development should not be considered premature.

The Act or Regulations do not specifically define premature development or explain the concept, however, the Commission believes some guidance in defining or applying this concept is found in the Statement of General Planning Principles and Policies contained in Part I of the Planning Act Regulations. Part I, Section 2 of the Regulations sets out how the regulations are to be construed:

These regulations shall be construed in accordance with, and for the purpose of giving effect to, the statement of general planning principles and policies set out in this part.

Subsection A. sets out both the general and specific goals to be achieved by implementation of the subdivision regulations under Part V:

A. SUBDIVISION OF LAND

Part V (Subdivision regulations) is designed to achieve the following goals:

(a)    generally

(i)     to control haphazard and unplanned development and prevent unnecessary loss of prime agricultural land,

(ii)    to ensure a form of development in the province that is efficient in terms of servicing and provides a maximum of convenience and safety,

(iii)    to minimize pollution, environmental degradation, and land use conflicts,

(iv)    promote good subdivision design and practice in accordance with recognized standards and principles; and

(b) specifically

(i)     to encourage large urban-type residential subdivisions (more than four lots) locating in areas where at least one piped service (sewage or water) is or can be made available,

(ii)     to confine residential growth in rural areas to small subdivisions (four lots or less),

(iii)    to limit unserviced residential growth in areas immediately adjacent to those towns and communities that have sewage or water systems,

(iv)    to require developers to pay for the costs of development,

(v)    to approve large subdivisions only where there is a demonstrated need for the subdivision and where it can be expected that the lots will be sold and built upon within a reasonable period of time,

(vi)     to promote a good quality of residential neighborhood.

In addition, subsection B. of Part I outlines specific provisions as they pertain to the subdivision of land in rural areas. The provisions of this section state, inter alia:

Part 1.B.(1)

…Large residential (five or more lots) subdivisions will be approved only if the developer

(a)    can justify the need for the subdivision;

(b)    is willing to enter into an agreement to pay for development costs; and

(c)    is not taking Class 2 or 3 agricultural land out of production prematurely or unnecessarily.

It is the Commission's understanding that the subdivision of land in the Province of Prince Edward Island is controlled under the Planning Act Regulations made under Section 8.(1) of the Act. Further, Part I of the Regulations—Statement of General Planning Principles and Policies—sets out the particular way in which one is to construe and give effect to the regulations including those regulations that control the subdivision of land in those areas to which the regulations apply (Part III, Section 4). Because the land relevant to this subdivision is located within an area to which these regulations apply and any proposed subdivision must comply with these regulations, the proposal must in turn help to achieve certain goals of the principles and policies.

The Department points out that the subject property is located within the coastal area and therefore the Coastal Area Policy (EC158/92) and the Coastal Area Regulations apply in addition to Part V Subdivision Regulations.

The Commission understands that pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act Regulations, an application to subdivide land for single family dwelling lots in this area must satisfy both the general rules which are applicable to all areas to which the Regulations apply, (pursuant to Section 7 of the Planning Act) including Part V - the Subdivision Regulations and those specific provisions relating to the coastal area under the Coastal Area Regulations. Both sets of regulations must be applied and these regulations must be construed in accordance with, and for the purpose of giving effect to, the statement of general planning principles and policies (Part I) and the Coastal Development Policy.

Under the Subdivision Regulations, Section 25 sets out specific requirements for subdivision approval, including the provision which pertains to premature development.

According to subsection 25.(2)(c):

25.(1) Any person wishing to subdivide land shall show to the satisfaction of the Minister that all land to be subdivided and the subdivision thereof is suited to the purpose for which the subdivision is intended having regard to

(a) topography and physical conditions of the land;

(b) soil characteristics;

(c) surface drainage;

(d) potential flooding, subsidence and erosion;

(e) location, convenience and safety of access;

(f) availability, adequacy and the economical provision of utilities and services;

(g) existing use of land in the immediate vicinity;

(h) segregation of traffic flow as between main and minor thoroughfares;

(i) the dimension, shape, orientation and accessibility of each lot of land; and

(j) the intended use of the land.

(2) No person shall be permitted to subdivide land if, in the opinion of the Minister, the proposed subdivision

(a) does not conform to these regulations;

(b) would be detrimental to the convenience, health or safety of occupants in the vicinity or the general public;

(c) would precipitate premature development or unnecessary public expenditure, or would place undue pressures on the municipality or the province to provide services; or

(d) would result in undue damage to the natural environment.

(emphasis added)

The Commission heard from the Department that the regulation pertaining to premature development (Section 25.(2)(c)) has existed since the time the Planning Act and its Regulations were first enacted. As the Department illustrated during the hearing, the enforcement of the prematurity provision was more prevalent in the mid-seventies to early eighties.

Legal Counsel, for the Developer argued that the test for prematurity is difficult and abstract. The Commission agrees and as already stated finds the Act or its Regulations do not specifically define the phrase premature development or set specific guidelines on what constitutes premature development or when the prematurity rule should apply.

Past decisions by the Land Use Commission reveal that the concept of prematurity was based on several factors, including: the demand and supply of existing lots in close proximity to the proposed subdivision; the expenditure of public moneys and the ability to service proposed lots; and the loss of productive agricultural land.

In the Commission's view, the concept of prematurity is multi-disciplinary and imports social, economic and fiscal considerations.

Although as discussed above, the Regulations do not specifically define what constitutes premature development, the Commission believes that the concept must be applied within the context of the principles and policies outlined in Part I of the Regulations.

The Commission finds there is no specific regulation relating to premature development in the Coastal Area Regulations.

However, based on the location of the area to be developed relative to the shore, Section 17 of the Coastal Area Regulations limits the number of lots which may be subdivided from a parcel at any one time:

Section 17.

(1)     Final approval shall be given only for that phase of the subdivision that may reasonably be able to be developed over a five year period from the date of final approval.

(2)    The total number of lots that may be approved in any one phase of a subdivision shall not exceed 20 lots, unless the developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minister that the number of lots to be approved in any phase should exceed 20.(emphasis added)

(3)    At such time as 50 percent of the lots in the previously approved subdivision have dwellings on them, the subdivider may present the next phase of the subdivision for approval.

By establishing these provisions it is reasonable to think that Government has addressed issues in the Coastal Development Policy and the Coastal Area Regulations, similar to those raised by the Appellants. These issues pertain to land use development, including the issue of prematurity. The Commission finds that government through the Coastal Area Regulations has established a set of regulations and development standards which permit an acceptable level of development in a controlled manner on land of similar character to the land which is the subject of this appeal. The Commission believes, that through the adoption of the Coastal Development Policy and the Coastal Area Regulations, the Lieutenant Governor in Council has determined what is believed to be acceptable development parameters which in its view achieve an acceptable balance between development and resource use within the coastal area.

The argument presented in this case pertaining to the premature loss of prime agricultural land is a major policy theme which reaches across the entire continent and literally into every province and state. Several provinces have implemented some form of land use controls or growth management strategies to protect farmland, especially from further urbanization. Constant threats posed to farmland by suburbanization derives not only from the fact that some farms will be subdivided and sold, but also from the fact that remaining farms may find it increasingly difficult to continue to operate due to incompatibility with and opposition from, their interspersed new suburban neighbors. Often these landowners regard the presence of normal agricultural noises, dusts, sprays and odors as interference of their right to enjoy their property.

As we understand, the Planning Act Regulations in Part I through the Statement of Principles and Policies attempt to address these issues. That is, in part, the reason when developers submit an application to subdivide land pursuant to Section 25.(1) they are required to provide information that demonstrates the land to be subdivided is suited to the purpose for which the subdivision is intended.

At the same time, in Prince Edward Island, not only is the preservation of farmland an important public issue, but also its coastal resources. In this regard, Government has developed specific policies focusing on the coastal area and has adopted specific regulations to permit development to occur within the coastal area, with certain restrictions.

It is clear to the Commission that any decision made with respect to the enforcement of the Regulations must contribute to the achievement of the stated principles and policies as stated in Part I, including the goals as set out in subsection A pertaining to the Subdivision of Land. In addition, the Regulations pertaining to the coastal area must also contribute to the general intent, principles and objectives according to the Coastal Development Policy made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council subsequent to Part I.

The Commission is of the opinion that the Regulations which are adopted to guide and control development, and which are to be construed in accordance with the principles and policies enunciated in Part I, are not consistent. By example, the Commission is of the opinion that for those subdivisions which may be located in both the coastal area and a rural area the provisions of the Coastal Area Regulations do not take into account, in the approval process, whether a proposed subdivision would be taking class 2 or 3 agricultural land out of production prematurely or unnecessarily. Under the Coastal Development Policy, the only provision pertaining to prematurity is the provision to discourage premature subdivision by ensuring all approved subdivisions are assessed at market value (Section 6.(c).

To further illustrate this issue, we find that in applying the provisions under subsection A of Part I to the subject subdivision, the proposed 19 lots contribute little to the achievement of many of the goals. Considering the location, the surrounding land use and the subdivision size, it is reasonable to conclude that permitting this subdivision does not contribute to controlling haphazard development but perpetuates this type of development. The subdivision is not contiguous to other subdivisions but represents the initial conversion of active rural agricultural lands to residential use which does not contribute to the prevention of unnecessary loss of prime agricultural land but enhances the loss. The report by Kingsley Lewis (Exhibit D25) makes very clear to the Commission that in his professional opinion the proposed subdivision conflicts with the goals of ensuring a form of development in the province that is efficient in terms of servicing and provides a maximum of convenience and safety.

Mr. Lewis states on page 6 of his report:

The predominant adjacent uses to the subject land parcel are active agricultural, although there are a number of single family residences in the immediate vicinity (along the Meadowbank Road)[SIC]. There exists a potential for conflicts between occupants of the subdivision and adjacent agricultural landowners respecting such matters as spraying of crops, noise from machinery, odours from manure spreading etc. Such conflicts would be detrimental to the convenience of the adjacent agricultural landowners in pursuing their livelihood. The incidence of this type of conflict has been increasing in recent years.

The Commission also concludes that based on the evidence of Mr. Lewis, the proposed subdivision will not assist to minimize land use conflicts.

The Commission finds the proposed subdivision appears to be contrary to many of the specific goals stated in Section A. of Part I of the Regulations.

The proposed subdivision is 19 lots in size without accounting for the additional lots that the Department of Transportation and Public Works requested. The Commission understands that it is not the desire of the developer to create more than 19 lots and has no reason to believe that he will not develop a subdivision of the highest quality. Clearly, one can only draw from the provisions contained in Part I, subsection B - Subdivision in Rural Areas - that for a 19 lot subdivision the developer must demonstrate that there is a need for the subdivision. Further, as argued by the Appellants, this proposal will result in some loss of productive Class 2 or 3 agricultural land.

The Commission also heard evidence from Kingsley Lewis on how he evaluated the subdivision pursuant to the provisions of Section 25 and determined, inter alia, the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the convenience of the adjacent agricultural landowners due to potential conflicts between occupants of the subdivision and the agricultural landowners respecting agricultural land use and practices and that the proposed subdivision would precipitate premature development.

When one examines the provisions of Section 25 of the Regulations in accordance with the Statement of General Planning Principles and Policies as set out in Part 1, one might have good reason to deny the 19 lot subdivision as proposed on this parcel. However, given the location of the proposed subdivision along the Clyde River and within the coastal area, the Coastal Area Regulations must also be applied in this case, and pursuant to Section 17.(2) this form of development is permitted in the coastal area provided certain conditions can be satisfied and the development is the type contemplated in the Coastal Development Policy. To emphasize this point not only is the site located in the coastal area but there is no limit on the number of lots that can be approved, only how they can be phased in.

Under the Coastal Area Regulations there is no provision for the Minister to consider whether an application to subdivide would be taking class 2 or 3 agricultural land out of production prematurely or unnecessarily. The only real criterion to satisfy in this instance, as prescribed by Section 17.(1), is to determine whether it is reasonable that the lots may be developed within five years.

Other than the Developer indicating that the market for his lots is good we have no expert evidence on whether or not it is reasonable to expect that the 19 lots will be developed within a five year period. The evidence put forward by the Appellants, pertaining to the availability of undeveloped lots and land available for subdivision has not convinced the Commission that the proposed 19 lot subdivision cannot be developed within five years.

Although the Appellants are concerned that the proposed subdivision is unsuitable to the location, the Commission must take some comfort from the fact that pursuant to Section 19.(1) of the Coastal Area Regulations the subdivision approval may be revoked if no lot is conveyed within five years.

19.(1) Where no lot in an approved subdivision has been conveyed within a period of five years from the date of approval of the subdivision, the approval shall be revoked.

Therefore, based on the provisions of the Planning Act Regulations, the Commission finds that although the proposed 19 lot single family residential subdivision in this location may in some ways appear to not be consistent with the goals of the subdivision regulations as set out pursuant to Part V of the Regulations, it is consistent with the provisions of the more recent Coastal Development Policy and the Coastal Area Regulations.

On balance, the Commission finds that in this case, when the Planning Act, the Planning Act Regulations and the relevant principles and policies are considered on the whole, the creation of 19 lots on this parcel of land does not contravene the Regulations.

In the result, the Commission must deny the appeal and confirm the Minister's decision.

4. Disposition

For the reasons stated the appeal is denied and the Minister's decision is confirmed.

IN THE MATTER of an appeal by certain concerned citizens of Meadow Bank and Clyde River against a decision by the Department of Provincial Affairs and Attorney General, dated July 24, 1995.

Order

WHEREAS certain concerned Citizens of Meadow Bank and Clyde River have appealed a decision of the Department of Provincial and Attorney General to approve in principle a 19 lot single family residential subdivision in Meadow Bank;

AND WHEREAS the Commission heard the appeal at a public hearing conducted in Cornwall on October 24, 1995 and in Charlottetown on November 21, 1995, after due public notice;

AND WHEREAS the Commission has issued its findings in this matter in accordance with the Reasons for Order issued with this Order;

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act and the Planning Act

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1.    The appeal is denied and the Minister's decision is confirmed.

DATED at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 8th day of March, 1996.

BY THE COMMISSION:

John L. Blakney, Vice-Chair

James Nicholson, Commissioner

Anne McPhee, Commissioner

NOTICE

Section 12 of the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission Act reads as follows:

12. The Commission may, in its absolute discretion, review, rescind or vary any order or decision made by it or rehear any application before deciding it.

Parties to this proceeding seeking a review of the Commission's decision or order in this matter may do so by filing with the Commission, at the earliest date, a written Request for Review, which clearly states the reasons for the review and the nature of the relief sought.

Sections 13.(1) and 13(2) of the Act provide as follows:

13.(1) An appeal lies from a decision or order of the Commission to the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court upon a question of law or jurisdiction.

(2) The appeal shall be made by filing a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court within twenty days after the decision or order appealed from and the Civil Procedure Rules respecting appeals apply with the necessary changes.

1     Excerpt from Notes prepared by John Pickard for Albert MacDonald and submitted by Albert MacDonald at the hearing on November 21, 1995.