Hugh S. Wilkins

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 505 Balliol Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board granted participant status to a local resident and set the procedural schedule, including dates for the hearing, document exchange, and a further pre-hearing conference.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation and monitoring of groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following Nortel's insolvency proceedings, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants agreed to withdraw their appeals and the Director agreed to revoke the Order.

The Tribunal found that the proposed withdrawals and revocation were consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as a new Director's Order would be issued to the current property owner, backed by financial assurance, to ensure ongoing risk management measures are implemented.

The appeals were dismissed and the Order was revoked.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the assessment and remediation of groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following the appellant's insolvency and CCAA proceedings, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellant would contribute funds to the current site manager for ongoing remediation, and the Director would issue a new order with updated risk management requirements.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the withdrawal of the appeal and revocation of the original Director's Order were consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellant, Nagata Auto Parts Canada Co., Ltd., sought to withdraw its appeal of a Director's Order regarding groundwater contamination at sites in Middlesex County.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the appellant reached a settlement, and a new Provincial Officer's Order was issued requiring risk management and monitoring measures.

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

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Nortel and Nagata appealed a Director's Order requiring work to be done at a contaminated site.

Nortel, under CCAA protection, reached a settlement with the MOECC to pay approximately $3,000,000 to address outstanding environmental issues.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of Nortel's appeal and the revocation of the Director's Order against Nortel, finding the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease using a former waste disposal site and remove vehicles.

The Director subsequently requested the Tribunal revoke the order and dismiss the appeal, noting the site had been restored, illegal waste removed, and a section 46 Environmental Protection Act approval granted for use as an unpaved parking lot.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, revoked the Director's Order, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines as part of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to amend a condition of the approval relating to the protection of Blanding's turtles during construction and maintenance activities, and the appellant proposed to withdraw the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding the amendment to be in the public interest and consistent with the Environmental Protection Act, and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Little Brown Bat and Blanding's turtle.

In the remedy phase, the Approval Holder proposed mitigation plans to address the Tribunal's previous findings of harm.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the mitigation plans and applied the precautionary principle.

The Tribunal accepted the bat mitigation plan with a modification to extend turbine curtailment to sunrise.

However, the Tribunal found the proposed road restoration measures for Blanding's turtle were novel and unstudied, and therefore removed the turbines associated with those road upgrades from the approval.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order directing that the continuation of the cross-examination of a witness for the approval holder take place before the Tribunal, or alternatively, directing counsel to refrain from further objections.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the transcript of the cross-examination and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The appellant brought three motions in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The motions sought to qualify a witness as an expert and to admit new evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motions in part, qualifying the witness as an energy consultant and admitting specific documents attached to the affidavits of the witness and another expert into evidence, while allowing the respondents to cross-examine the affiants on the newly admitted documents.

The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend an Environmental Compliance Approval to permit the acceptance and transfer of asbestos-contaminated materials at a waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellant sought to withdraw its appeals.

The Tribunal found the proposed amended Environmental Compliance Approval consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed them, and ordered the Director to issue the amended approval.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to recover over $3.6 million in cleanup costs related to a spill.

Several named parties appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the Region proposed revoking the order against one appellant whose estate lacked funds, and two other appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Act's purpose and the public interest, and accepted the withdrawal of the remaining appeals, dismissing the proceedings.

The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.

The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.

The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.

The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.

The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Technical Standards and Safety Authority and Thompson Fuels sought costs against the Gendrons following a motion regarding the Gendrons' Notices of Allegation and proposed Amended Notice of Appeal.

The Tribunal found that while the Gendrons' late delivery of the Notices of Allegation in non-compliance with the Tribunal's Rules constituted unreasonable and frivolous conduct, the moving parties did not demonstrate undue prejudice.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to award costs, noting that a previous sanction prohibiting the Gendrons from pursuing the allegations was sufficient penalty.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

Following a finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to consider remedies.

The appellants brought a motion requesting that the continuation of the hearing be held in person rather than in writing.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that receiving evidence in writing was fair, would prevent further delay given the statutory six-month deadline, and would provide the best evidence to fulfill its mandate.