ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, N.S. - Whether or not the County of Annapolis will receive approval to move forward with plans to expropriate Valley Waste’s transfer station in Lawrencetown remains to be seen.
Lawyers representing both parties, as well as legal counsel for the six remaining municipal partners with the Valley Region Solid Waste-Resource Management Authority, had a chance to present arguments to Justice Jamie Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia during an appearance in Annapolis Royal Nov. 21.
The towns of Annapolis Royal, Berwick, Kentville, Middleton and Wolfville, as well as the Municipality of the County of Kings, still belong to Valley Waste through the inter-municipal services agreement the organization was formed under. These six municipal partners requested a judicial review of Annapolis County council’s decision to expropriate the waste authority’s western transfer station property in Lawrencetown.
Authority to expropriate questioned
Lawyer Frank DeMont represented the six remaining municipal partners involved with Valley Waste at the recent court appearance.
The main question at the heart of arguments presented by both sides asked the court to consider whether or not Valley Waste could be characterized as a municipality according to language within the Municipal Government Act (MGA).
A decision regarding this question is crucial in the case, as section 52 (1) of the MGA states that council can expropriate property “but this power to expropriate does not authorize a municipality to expropriate property of another municipality.”
“The real question for the court,” Demont said, “is did they have the authority to take the property of another municipality. Therefore, the question then becomes: does, in fact, Valley Waste fall within the definition of what a municipality is according to the Municipal Government Act?”
The parties are seeking the court’s interpretation of the word “municipality” in the context of the relevant section of the MGA.
“They used the municipality definition because it gives that flexibility for unknown, uncontemplated potentially unthought of issues,” said DeMont, adding that a conscious choice was made to use the term municipality rather than municipal unit.
He noted that Valley Waste is owned and controlled by municipal partners, and the organization is not permitted to record a loss or profit in the same way a private entity would.
“It can’t have a loss and it can’t have a profit,” said DeMont, noting that any excess money goes back to the municipal partners funding the organization.
The court also heard that Valley Waste is exempt from paying property tax, and a Grant Thornton audit referred to the organization as a government partnership.
“Section 52 is to prevent a mischief where one community takes the property of another community for whatever reason,” said DeMont.
Municipality counters
Bruce Gillis, municipal solicitor for the Municipality of the County of Annapolis, said the authority’s inter-municipal agreement states that Valley Waste owns the property.
“I refer you to section 10 (2) of the inter-municipal services agreement, which says clearly… any capital asset created or acquired by the authority shall be owned by the authority – nobody else. And this is the agreement that all of the municipalities agreed to… they all signed it.”
Gillis argued that Valley Waste is an incorporated body, not a municipality. He disagreed with the assertion that the wording in the aforementioned section of the MGA allows for a flexible interpretation of the word municipality.
“They distinctly did not use the term municipal government. They distinctly did not use the term municipal unit,” said Gillis.
The parties also debated whether the expropriation matter should be before the court, or handled by the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board.
“There is no remedy that we can seek from the UARB, they have no ability to give us relief because they… cannot set aside that decision of the council of the Municipality of Annapolis County,” argued DeMont, who noted that the review board could deal with such matters as compensation and costs relating to expropriation but the court has the power to quash the expropriation.
Gillis, on the other hand, asserted that the UARB process can go beyond compensation.
“Virtually everything that arises from the Expropriation Act fits within the purview of the board,” he said.
The proceeding concluded with Campbell informing the parties that he would have likely release a decision regarding this phase of the process within two to three weeks.
Divided by dispute
Officials with the County of Annapolis announced the municipality’s intent to leave the inter-municipal services agreement with Valley Waste in April. The organization requires a year’s notice from municipal partners withdrawing from the agreement.
Valley Waste announced in August that it would stop providing curbside collection services in Annapolis County, alleging that the municipality owed the authority approximately $700,000 for services provided since the County of Annapolis served notice to withdraw from the agreement.
County of Annapolis officials have repeatedly said council opted to withdraw from the agreement due to unresolved concerns regarding how Valley Waste approves operating budgets and expenditures. Representatives of the municipality have also said that a cheque was sent to settle the non-payment claims, but Valley Waste representatives later reported that the money came with conditions the authority was not prepared to accept.
See previous stories:
Valley Waste vows to halt service
Aylesford Man raises compost contract concerns
