of basically the same type of material and what this pile is is sort of the used part of the pile of just talked about so on this pile consists of buildings that had been destroyed or destroyed or pavement that had been broken out so hard these materials get their word they go well the recyclable material that's brought in from third parties and  on a regular basis is taken to the dell in the year before we were cited on three occasions the record show or testimony is consistent that contradicted working if they have an opportunity they'll take material to the dog but when they don't sometimes will work out of the doctor's clothes and then they have to take maybe a little bit of editorial back to the side so it all depends no fake a researcher on me if i think that there are some when when you read their regulation in the inspector comes and logs and the inspector should ask a question what are you going do with it because then you get into all of these i've situations where you people want to have a bright line i think the law itself is good do you have a plan to dispose of it elsewhere for example in the abrams case abandonment which is sort of the other side of do you have a plan obviously to discuss the discarded something you don't have a plan so they sort of fit together so in these cases for example in the gonzales case the death and then there's another piece of extra with the inspector comes by and says hey there's a piece of wood there and you say well i plan on putting in my desk well is there a plan or isn't it i think you have to take it on a case by case basis but if you see that your is a regular plan of taking things to the dump and you can go into court all sorts of examples like so many building a treehouse for their of the time at that time was prescheduled inspections twenty five percent were on an hours well the big question i try to ask was what's the timeframe between your first and second visit the we took that to the dell the record shows unfair hoary age twenty twelve and then she comes back again in march fourteenth she says there's a pile you know there's a pile there we're going to take that to the dump too if she kept coming and i had time she would see that we put this stuff together so when i say we're not trying to hide anything we put it on a concrete pad in a pile and we're saying we're going to take that to the down and so when they were cited for the first trial why would in other words there can be a long period of time where we don't have stuff on a dog because we've taken it directly to the duffy so the regular basis it's not like we're through our banana peel in there every day when we don't have any jobs they're probably not going to be a thing in the pile so witness said no i know exactly where that comes from it's not construction debris so if there is a dispute there we still have the issue of open dumping the waste resulting in a letter even if it's u become someone interprets and he says to her would you go to bed and sleep with me for a million pounds and she says sure why not and he said ok how about ten pounds and she said thirty days or sixty or ninety or six months or eighteen months or twenty years is just this purpose suggested we're now discussing the the issue between a million pounds and ten pounds or between when he is this a there is no certain plan for the accumulated waste disposal elsewhere and i haven't heard from you of a certain plan other than when there is a truck load it gets taken away well the problem with that relates to is we don't know how long it takes to get a truck load it could take twenty years it could take one day i don't know and so we have a question of fact euro or at least the question of mix was in fact which is when is it deemed to be reasonable as to whether a mathematical swayed establishes that you either are a just pose a plant because you don't have a certain plan for removing this if you if your clients decided that every thirty days they would remove whatever it was that was there were guarding us of the size i think you probably would be making a much stronger argument to this court do you see where i'm coming from at least i do see where you can and that's the problem you're asking us to overturn a decision of any ministry to our governmental agency where good question is manifest weight and when you see we remove it when there's a truckload but you don't tell me that is if we're down on average every thirty or forty five or sixty days and i don't think that's in the record put this in a confined a fine or contained area were object to prevent its entry into the environment or if you have a certain plan then you would be in violation you took pictures of when the last pile was removed and showed it to machine it's it this is the last pile that and here's a picture of the new pile can you see the difference between the two piles maybe she might come away with the impression that you do have a certain essentially sweet generous when it comes to credibility and when you're dealing with manifest waiting you're dealing with deference it's given to try or affect the fact of some other person who's believed in a different case e the facts showed that it was not demolition debris it was just our material so we don't think it is our first argument is or isn't doesn't achieve success that's our second argue with respect not using the definition re used instead using the word used it using the word used and ignoring that statutory scheme does it make a difference whether it's used reusable brand new whatever if there is water inside i think it does because we have all sorts of equipment everybody has all sorts of equipment that collects water and so if the thing is tires to the smaller tires go on the flat rough to be put plywood over it and the building falls down the truck tires are the bases for the stands and spears for some of our equipment when you did th read too much into it i mean i know well why would you take those if if you didn't work reusing them but i and i guess this is outside the record id be just clean it up and hope she doesn't come back again so include various concrete makes room a serious soil rock will not non hazardous painted wood treated wood there's a list of different types of objects which fall under that more specific part of the definition  here the pile consisted of materials which came from both offsite and onsite work projects it consisted of a number of the specific types of objects which are listed in the definition of general construction can blow all away particulate matter that's contained within the pilot that remains that could wash away part of it into the ground and that's why and those sort of different factors and circumstances are the types of things that the board takes evidence because whether or not schools hasn't heard depends on the specific bass in each case and the border takes all those into account and here where you have a combination of the file that is not cover or container immediately in both of those circumstances the court of the board were addressing the concern that you might have some situation where you dump something off a truck onto the ground but then five minutes later you pick it off and put it into a different truck t greater risk of entering the environment more quickly but there is no language in the statute requiring that our pilot be of a certain size or that a certain amount of pollutants be at risk of entering the environment in order to establish a violation so here you have a file that the audience you know is fairly there that there wasn't anything covering it and where you have it sitting out in the elements for an unknown period of time taking all those factors into account the hill and this is the in boyish that we paid for between the time of their photograph and the present photograph it means that if something had to be moved off site i don't know if that would necessarily establish that there was no violation but it would make it more likely it would make it easier for the board to find that there was not long because they are present in a certain planet and here there is there are even though the definition in the  ministry of code is sort of an either or it's disposal if there's no covering or if there is no certain plan so if either one is satisfied disposals occurred and time is kind of a component of both of those to some extent because the backs of the earlier concern i think i think there is a very legitimate concern that you don't want to create a situation where if you put something on the ground you know for five minutes before taking it to a disposal site that automatically becomes a violation of the act and i think that's what the circumstances where the type of substance is is you know like making sure something or something that is so that is a type of substance that could enter the environment very quickly and those are all sort of different circumstances and thought their journal construction or don't wish to read is different than literate otherwise they were by no reason to create a whole separate definition for that type of waste well could mean later my own what these environmental regulations because the resident is not in the business of engaging and you know construction work and would know they would have to look to the environmental protection act to make sure that the best year she was not doing anything unlawful and also a resident these different tires and which is in the business of doing these types of things as part of their regular business too and be less of a burden just to ensure that these tires are store properly and those businesses are more likely to have these tires and so the brisk of an them inside shake them out or do you know any number of measures which would be sufficient to enjoy the old great i would i would think so or i although i don't know for sure i'm not a tire expert but get out of this by putting it into a container that is not relevant to the board does this give you a quick question