Helen Jackson

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of hazardous waste and the completion of a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment.

Following a previous decision ordering the Director to amend the order, the parties disagreed on the compliance deadlines for the remaining work items.

The appellants requested an extension because their retained Qualified Person was occupied with emergency work at another property following a fire.

The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed-upon extended compliance dates of August 3, 2021, for the Action Plan and October 29, 2021, for the Final Report, and directed the Director to issue the amended order with these dates.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a waste disposal site and a financial assurance estimate.

After the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the ECA requirement in a first phase hearing, the appellants withdrew the remainder of their appeal.

The Tribunal lifted the stay on the remaining items, set compliance dates, and dismissed the proceeding pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to address contamination from a former manufactured gas plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the revocation of the original order, the issuance of a new order specifying risk management measures for the affected properties, and the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the issuance of the new order.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to implement an inspection and maintenance program for soil berms and to retain a Qualified Person to assess potential off-site impacts.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a nearby resident who raised concerns about environmental conditions.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for documentary disclosure and scheduled a further pre-hearing conference to scope issues and consider mediation.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a lot and construct a new dwelling for his extended family.

The subject property is designated Escarpment Protection Area under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance exceeded permitted lot density provisions and did not conform to the lot creation policies of the Plan.

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

The appellant appealed a condition in its Environmental Compliance Approval that reduced the allowable spreading rate of septage at its disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the condition to allow a higher weekly spreading rate while maintaining a reduced monthly maximum to protect groundwater.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the amendment of the condition, and dismissed the appeal upon its withdrawal.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an amended permit to take water to the instrument holder for quarry operations.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement that did not require any changes to the permit, and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding as the appeal was withdrawn on consent without altering the decision under appeal.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new dwelling, raising concerns about well water supply in the area.

During a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to an additional condition requiring a qualified professional to demonstrate that the proposed well would adequately service the dwelling and meet Ontario Building Code requirements.

The Hearing Officer found that the revised condition addressed the appellant's concerns and confirmed the decision to issue the development permit with the added condition.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan for a joint farming operation.

The Director refused the plan on the basis that a proposed NASM storage lagoon, owned by a waste management company, was a non-agricultural operation and required an Environmental Compliance Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Director erred by focusing solely on the storage lagoon rather than the entire agricultural operation.

The Tribunal concluded that the joint operation was an agricultural operation, the lagoon was not an intermediate operation, and the facility was exempt from EPA approval requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the NASM plan was approved.

The Municipality of East Ferris issued an order under the Environmental Protection Act requiring the Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board to pay costs for cleaning up a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The School Board appealed, arguing it was not the legal successor to the 1957 school board that owned the property when the school was built.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that under the 1968 Separate Schools Act, the 1969 school board took over the functions, responsibilities, and liabilities of the 1957 board, making it the legal successor for the purposes of section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties appealed a Municipal Order and a Director's Order regarding the clean-up of a heating oil spill at a former school site.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included a remediation action plan and an amendment to the Director's Order regarding sampling requirements.

The Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs discharged from its metals recycling facility onto an adjacent municipal golf course.

Following completion of the required remediation work, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director withdrew the requirement to provide an alternative irrigation water source and the appellant withdrew its appeal of the waste handling requirements.

The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the settlement as consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a completed application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for status from various individuals and entities.

The Tribunal granted party status to a downgradient golf course, participant status to a co-owner of the subject property, and presenter status to neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also set procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing.

Lafarge Canada Limited appealed three Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding alleged exceedances of total suspended solids and reporting failures at its quarry and cement terminal.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director agreed to amend the orders to remove certain contraventions and associated penalties, as the discharges did not meet the definition of 'process effluent'.

Lafarge agreed to pay the remaining penalty amounts totaling $80,151.40.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, amended the orders, and dismissed the appeals.

Several local residents appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new chicken broiler barn.

During the pre-hearing conference, the applicant explained that the new barn would improve animal welfare and potentially reduce odours and truck noise.

Following this explanation, all attending appellants withdrew their appeals.

As one appellant failed to appear and the rest withdrew, the Commission's decision was deemed confirmed pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Tribunal held pre-hearing conferences regarding consolidated appeals related to a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The appeals involve a municipal order for clean-up costs and a Director's Order requiring remediation work.

The parties engaged in mediation and resolved most issues.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a one-day hearing to address the single remaining issue in the Director's Order appeal.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a rifle range and stadium on a cross-country ski property.

Immediately prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment due to a serious family illness.

The other parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officer granted a peremptory adjournment to allow the appellant to attend, noting that failure to attend would result in the confirmation of the permit.

The applicant sought location approval for a proposed dam and hydroelectric facility under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry issued a Notice of Intention to Refuse Location Approval, citing uncertainty regarding areas to be flooded and insufficient hydrological data.

The applicant requested an inquiry.

The Inquiry Officers found that the applicant's hydraulic modelling was reliable and sufficient to predict that water level changes would remain within natural fluctuations, resulting in negligible biological impacts.

The Inquiry Officers also found the applicant's Aboriginal consultation efforts to be adequate.

Concluding that the intended refusal was not fair, sound, or reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act, the Inquiry Officers recommended that the Minister approve the location of the proposed dam subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to perform work and provide financial assurance regarding a foundry sand waste pile on their property.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants would withdraw their appeal, the original order would be revoked, and a new order would be issued requiring the complete removal of the foundry sand by November 1, 2019.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.