Hugh S. Wilkins

The appellants appealed municipal orders to pay costs issued by the City of Kawartha Lakes under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act relating to the clean-up of a furnace oil spill.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the co-owner, finding she was not the owner or person in control of the pollutant immediately before the discharge.

The Tribunal allowed the owner's appeal in part, reducing the total amount payable to $313,005.08, but dismissed his arguments that the consulting and monitoring costs were unrelated to preventing adverse effects or were unreasonable.

The Tribunal issued an order regarding the scope of the continuation of a hearing concerning appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal had previously found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

In this order, the Tribunal determined that the Approval Holder would be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding proposed remedies to address the identified harm.

The Tribunal also clarified the tests, considerations, and onus of proof applicable under section 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act for the remedy phase of the hearing.

The appellants appealed two Director's Orders requiring them to remove and dispose of PCB waste at a property in Thorold, Ontario.

The parties reached a tentative settlement where the appellants would submit a plan to remove above-ground waste and secure below-ground waste, in exchange for the revocation of the orders against them.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it provided a protective resolution for the environment given the appellants' limited financial means.

During an appeal of an order to pay costs related to the clean-up of an environmental spill, an orderee requested presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the orderee's interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, he has a genuine interest in the subject matter, and he is likely to make a relevant contribution to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County brought a motion to stay a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind power project pending the disposition of its appeal.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing and site preparation would cause irreparable harm to the threatened Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Environmental Review Tribunal found that there was a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm would ensue to the spring foraging habitat of the Blanding's Turtle, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part, halting vegetation clearing in identified spring foraging habitat.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act against several persons to recover costs incurred for cleaning up a spill.

Several named persons appealed the order.

The Region subsequently advised the Tribunal that it intended to revoke the order against four of the appellants, as they did not have ownership or control of the pollutants.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation to be consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, revoked the order against those four appellants, and dismissed their appeals.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued an order regarding a spill of environmental contaminants at a site in Fort Erie.

Several parties appealed the order.

After the required remediation work was completed by some of the appellants, the Director proposed to revoke the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the proposed revocation to be consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal revoked the order and dismissed the appeals.

The moving party, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, sought an interim stay of physical activities associated with a renewable energy approval for a wind power project, pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing would cause irreparable harm to Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

The Tribunal found that while harm to active turtles was not demonstrated, there was sufficient evidence that irreparable harm to vegetation and spring foraging habitat could occur.

The balance of convenience favoured the moving party, and the interim stay was granted.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project pending the scheduling of a motion hearing for a full stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the interim stay, with reasons to follow, and directed that the hearing of the motion for a stay be scheduled in writing as soon as possible.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay of a renewable energy approval for a wind power generation project, seeking to halt vegetation clearing and site preparation.

The moving party argued that the proposed work would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its evidence was speculative and did not account for the mitigation and avoidance measures required by the approval.

The Tribunal also found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order to stay all physical activities within the proposed wind project area associated with a Renewable Energy Approval.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, with reasons to follow.

The appellants appealed an order from the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring an environmental investigation programme at a former dry cleaning facility.

After complying with the order, the appellants proposed to withdraw their appeals.

The Director and the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury consented.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals and dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion to strike portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, witness statements, and Notices of Allegation regarding an order to pay for the clean-up of a heating oil spill.

The City argued that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 100.1(15) of the Environmental Protection Act is strictly limited to specific considerations, excluding issues of fault, fairness, and financial hardship.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that s. 100.1(15) is a 'consider only' provision that precludes a broad 'new hearing' approach.

The Tribunal also ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for contribution and indemnification, which must be pursued in civil court.

The motion was granted, and the scope of the hearing was restricted accordingly.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order limiting the scope of the proceeding to matters set out in s. 100.1(15) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal struck portions of the appellants' notices of appeal, witness statements, and document briefs that did not relate to this section.

The Tribunal also accepted the withdrawal of certain notices of allegation and witness statements, and deferred costs applications to a later date.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status on consent to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, Doug C. Thompson Fuels Ltd., and Les Reservoirs D'Acier de Granby Inc. The status was granted for the limited purpose of responding to a motion brought by the City of Kawartha Lakes regarding the permissible scope of the Gendrons' appeals and Notices of Allegation.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to recover clean-up costs related to a spill.

Several named persons appealed the order and filed a Notice of Allegation against other parties, including the Town of Fort Erie.

The Town of Fort Erie requested party status in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the Town party status, finding its interests may be directly and substantially affected by the outcome of the appeal.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for motions and the main hearing.

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.