North Vancouver resident sues to overturn council's decision allowing chlorine plant to continue

A District of North Vancouver resident is challenging the council's recent decision to allow Chemtrade to continue producing liquid chlorine at its Maplewood plant, arguing the district's process was procedurally unfair and that council acted outside its jurisdiction.

Peter Teevan filed a 29-page petition in B.C. Supreme Court following the District council's 4-3 vote on July 20 to adopt a bylaw allowing chlorine production to continue. The bylaw includes a covenant on the property's title requiring chlorine operations to end by 2046.

Teevan's petition argues that the first district staff report council considered contained "substantial and material misrepresentations and errors" that experts who spoke at public hearings called out. Among the alleged misinformation: that Chemtrade's liquid chlorine was critical to Metro Vancouver and Western Canada's water treatment needs, and that infrastructure improvements made by Chemtrade would make the site and surrounding community safer. Those positions were then cited by both provincial leaders and district council members in their arguments for why the plant's operations should continue, the petition states.

"The staff report misinformation creates the false impression that the continued storage and shipping of liquid chlorine from the chloralkali plant and consequent continued risk to the surrounding community has been subject to a full and robust assessment and are justifiable and necessary on public health grounds," the documents state.

Teevan also contends that the district's quantitative risk assessment failed to address risks posed by earthquakes, flooding, or other natural disasters, and that it did not account for risks associated with transporting the chemical through dense urban areas — which district staff said was regulated federally and outside municipal jurisdiction. However, a legal opinion submitted to council by Teevan's lawyer concluded the municipality does have the power to regulate hazardous substances within its borders, including those being transported by rail. That opinion was not considered, Teevan argues.

The petition also challenges the justifications some council members made prior to their vote, arguing that concerns about supply chain independence from American suppliers are "not matters of municipal responsibility." "The respondent has relied on these improper purposes to justify permitting what is a known serious hazard and risk to the district's residents," the petition reads. "In doing so, it lost jurisdiction."

The District of North Vancouver has not yet filed a response to the petition. District staff said they could not comment on the matter while it was before the courts. No claims in the petition have been tested in court.