Graham Rempe

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit to demolish accessory structures and construct a single dwelling and detached garage.

The refusal was based on non-compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae due to an adjacent chicken farm.

The Hearing Officers found that while the application did not meet the strict MDS setback, a minor variance was available and appropriate in the specific circumstances, given the lack of alternative locations, the required environmental setback, and proposed odour mitigation measures.

The Minister approved the development permit subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a condition of a development permit issued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission that required an agreement precluding the use of the property for business purposes to be registered on title.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the condition to remove the requirement for registration on title, while keeping the agreement itself.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the amended permit pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, finding the revised condition correct and sufficient to protect the Commission's interests.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a greenhouse and herb operation.

At a pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner requested party status, citing concerns about potential cannabis cultivation and light pollution.

The Hearing Officers granted the neighbour party status, finding he had a genuine, direct, and substantial interest in the application and appeal.

A procedural schedule was also established for the upcoming hearing.

The appellants appealed a municipal order requiring them to pay $264,514.14 for the clean-up of an environmental spill.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion for leave to appeal a Superior Court decision regarding a stay of proceedings, the Environmental Review Tribunal scheduled the hearing dates and set procedural deadlines for disclosure and witness statements.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct a vapour intrusion assessment program at residential properties adjacent to their industrial facility.

After complying with the order and conducting the required sampling, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

With the consent of the Director and no objection from the presenter, the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct two vault washrooms and associated septic tanks in the Terra Cotta Conservation Area.

The appellants raised concerns regarding increased traffic, parking issues, and the necessity of the washrooms in a natural area.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed washrooms were a permitted use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan and met all applicable development criteria, noting that they would help prevent informal sewage disposal.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the applicant to demolish and rebuild a single dwelling.

The appellant's primary concern was the applicant's reliance on an off-site water source located on the appellant's property.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use and met the development criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed, as issues regarding water rights and potential liability were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application to construct vault washrooms in a conservation area.

During a pre-hearing conference, the appellants raised concerns regarding an access point to the property.

The hearing officers scheduled the hearing and set dates for the exchange of disclosure and witness statements.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised concerns regarding the proposed development's water source and its potential impact on a shared artesian well.

The Hearing Panel determined that a requested property boundary fence was not an appropriate issue for the appeal.

The Panel issued procedural directions and scheduled the hearing dates.

The appellants appealed a municipal order requiring them to pay costs for the clean-up of an environmental spill.

Parallel civil and by-law proceedings were also ongoing.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the Tribunal appeal pending their motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court regarding a stay of the proceedings.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to preserve the integrity of the process and avoid overlapping litigation.

The appellants sought to appeal a Provincial Officer's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Director requested the appeals be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants failed to request a review of the order by the Director within the statutory seven-day limit.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that under s. 140 of the Act, an appeal only lies from a Director's order.

Since no review was requested, no Director's order was made or deemed made.

The appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 119 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a second, detached dwelling on a property in the Escarpment Rural Area.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development did not comply with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which generally permits only one single dwelling per lot.

The proposal did not meet the criteria for a secondary dwelling unit because it would be detached and larger than the existing dwelling.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a municipal order requiring them to pay costs for cleaning up an oily contamination spill.

Parallel civil and by-law proceedings were also ongoing.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the appeal pending the Superior Court's decision on a motion to stay the civil and administrative proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a second dwelling on a property.

At a pre-hearing conference, nine area residents sought participant status.

The Hearing Officers granted participant status to all nine residents, finding their interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing.

Procedural directions were issued and the hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a two-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The appellant argued the permit should not be granted because an existing garage and fence encroached on an unopened municipal road allowance.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Hearing Officers granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged encroachment was a property boundary dispute outside the scope of the development permit and did not disclose a valid planning justification.

The appellant appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the management of ammonia and ammonium in an on-site stormwater management pond.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted Minutes of Settlement to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the issuance of the draft Amended ECA and dismissed the appeal.