A B.C. Supreme Court Justice has dismissed a Prince George wood lot owner's petition for a judicial review of a decision to increase the stumpage for the timber harvested on the property.
The issue dates back to July 2004 when a four-year cutting permit was issued Charanjiv Singh Parmar by the Prince George
Forest District.
Between August and October of 2004 timber was harvested and scaling completed under the permit and on Oct. 19, 2004, a stumpage rate of $23.76 per cubic metre was set for logs scaled between July 14 and Sept. 30, 2004.
The rate was discounted in recognition of estimated development costs that Parmer would incur to harvest the timber, such as road construction and other
infrastructure costs.
But in November 2008, Prince George Forest District staff carried out an inspection and found that more than 75 per cent of the infrastructure work that had been expected was in fact not done and in May 2009 the stumpage for those logs was raised to $36.60 per cubic metre.
The hike added up to $87,483 in additional stumpage Parmar was ordered to pay.
In his petition to the court, Parmar contended that a June 2010 amendment to the Forest Act authorizing the determination, redetermination or variation of a stumpage rate was restricted to cutting permits issued after July 31, 2005, and his permit was
issued prior to that date.
Parmar also pointed to a case in which Canfor successfully appealed an increase because it was found to have been made in accordance with a section of a policy manual that was in conflict with the Forest Act. The same section was used in his situation, Parmar submitted.
However, counsel representing the provincial government pointed out that Parmar had a right of appeal, beginning with the Forest Appeals Commission within three weeks of the first notification and then to the Supreme Court within three weeks of that decision.
Counsel submitted that these provisions in the Forest Act were adequate alternative remedies that Parmar forfeited by not appealing in time and he should not now be allowed to circumvent that requirement through seeking
judicial review.
In a ruling issued Monday, Justice John Truscott found that
Parmar failed to pursue avenues of appeal and further that although the policy manual was later declared inapplicable, the wording at the time gave the province authority is issue the increase.
Truscott said that in his view what the legislature did after the stumpage was increased in May 2009 had no relevance to the issue.
