Hugh S. Wilkins

The appellants, Wayne and Liana Gendron, brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding an order to pay clean-up costs for a furnace oil spill.

The appellants argued that the hearing should be adjourned until after the conclusion of a parallel civil action brought by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality had undertaken not to pursue its civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeded, thereby eliminating the risk of duplicative proceedings and double recovery.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The appellants brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of their appeals regarding an order to pay for the clean-up of a spill.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion to adjourn, with reasons to follow, and directed that a status telephone conference call be held to address procedural issues.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

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

The parties reached an agreement to request an adjournment of the hearing subject to specific conditions regarding site restoration work.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, imposing conditions including the completion of a slope stability study and site restoration work.

The appellants appealed two orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to secure, remove, and destroy PCB waste stored at their property, and to provide financial assurance.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a revised timetable for the appeal process and for proposed motions to strike a notice of allegation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order confirming the schedule for document exchange, motion materials, and the main hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

Prior to the main hearing, the appellant indicated his intention to withdraw the appeal, and the Director did not object.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed Director's Orders regarding the containment and monitoring of groundwater contamination.

Following a previous Tribunal order upholding the Director's Orders, the appellant withdrew the Notices of Allegation against third parties.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant, operator of a concrete batching facility, appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued by the Director.

The amendments changed the calculation of truck arrival limits from 'per hour' to 'per 60 minute period', clarified that 'deliveries' included all truck arrivals and departures, and added a requirement to record the arrival and departure times of all trucks.

The appellant argued these changes were novel, impractical, and not supported by noise guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the amendments were appropriate to prevent the clustering of truck arrivals, mitigate noise impacts on neighbouring residents, and ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's amendments and dismissed the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for presenter status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility in Prince Edward County.

Four individuals and organizations requested presenter status to provide evidence on birds, wildlife, ecosystems, and human health.

Finding that the requesters had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions, the Tribunal granted presenter status to all four, subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of their presentations.

The Moving Parties sought a stay or adjournment of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project, pending the outcome of their application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal determined the request was for an adjournment rather than a stay.

Applying its Rules of Practice, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not justified, as the judicial review would not necessarily resolve the issues before the Tribunal, and delaying the hearing would prejudice the appellant and not serve the public interest in timely proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was discharging a contaminant.

After completing the required decommissioning work to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The added parties brought a motion for a stay of the proceedings or an adjournment of the hearing regarding the refusal of a Renewable Energy Approval for two wind turbines.

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

The appellants appealed an order issued by the City of Kawartha Lakes under s. 100.1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to pay for the clean-up of a furnace oil spill.

The proceedings had been adjourned due to parallel civil actions.

Following an undertaking by the City not to pursue the civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeds, the Tribunal found a significant change in circumstances and issued an order setting procedural deadlines and hearing dates for the remaining appeals by the Gendrons.

The Approval Holder brought a motion for direction in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Director had approved 27 of the 29 proposed turbines.

The Approval Holder sought a direction that the parties submit evidence regarding the potential impacts of the full 29-turbine project, arguing it would be more efficient if they succeeded in a separate appeal to reinstate the two refused turbines.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Director's decision as issued, and declined to make advance rulings on the relevance of specific evidence.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address procedural matters and requests for status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Tribunal dismissed one appeal on consent.

It granted participant and presenter status to several individuals and a local business, limiting their presentations to issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied requests for party status from a municipality and two individuals, finding it unnecessary at this stage for procedural purposes, but allowed them to renew their requests if circumstances change.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, several entities requested party or presenter status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status to the Municipality of Prince Edward County and two individuals with cultural heritage expertise, finding they had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions.

The Tribunal denied party status to the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, as its interest was purely procedural and could be accommodated without formal party status.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario was granted presenter status.

The Tribunal also set the procedural schedule for the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the permit holder for dewatering a limestone quarry.

The appellant argued the supporting documentation was inadequate, the terms did not safeguard public interests, and the permit holder had a history of non-compliance.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while recent structural geology investigations and monitoring data adequately addressed hydrogeological uncertainties, the PTTW required amendments.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the permitted water taking volume, enhanced groundwater monitoring, the implementation of water conservation measures, and the addition of specific triggers and compliance mechanisms to the contingency plan.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa appealed an amendment to its Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the cessation date for accepting waste at its landfill.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to extend the date to April 16, 2016, allowing time for an environmental assessment for a long-term waste management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call and issued an order setting procedural directions and dates for the exchange of documents and witness statements ahead of the main hearing.