Jerry V. DeMarco

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties.

The appellants requested a continuation of a previously granted stay of certain portions of the Director's Order while they finalized a conceptual site model and work plan.

The Director consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and other actions at a site in Brockville.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties consented to a stay of Items 1 to 15 of the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from issuing a stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for the hearing and next steps.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its complaint regarding a vacancy rebate application.

The original application was denied by the City of Pickering because it was received after the statutory deadline, allegedly due to being lost in the mail.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the statutory time limit for making a vacancy rebate application is strict and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

As there was no valid, on-time application, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant relief.

The appellant sought a review of a previous Board decision that dismissed its request to reinstate property assessment appeals.

The appeals had been dismissed after the appellant failed to appear at a prehearing.

The appellant argued that a decision made under Rule 122 (reinstatement) could be reviewed under Rule 120.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that the plain wording of Rule 120 explicitly excludes decisions made under Rule 122 from further review.

The Board also found that even if Rule 120 applied, the appellant's failure to provide updated contact information and attend the prehearing was its own error, and none of the criteria for review under Rule 121 were met.

The request for review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the processing of agricultural material at a site in Kingsville.

The parties reached a settlement and proposed Minutes of Settlement to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed the appeals, and directed the Director to issue an amended order pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Notice of Suspension of conditions for a waste disposal site, the Tribunal addressed requests for status and scheduled a preliminary motion.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens Against the ED19 Dump for the entire proceeding, including the preliminary motion, finding that the narrow costs rules under the Environmental Protection Act addressed the appellant's concerns about potential costs awards.

Several other individuals and organizations were granted participant or presenter status on consent.

The appellant requested a review of a Board disposition that set the Commencement Day for a number of assessment appeals.

The Board considered whether the disposition was a 'final decision' subject to review under Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that the disposition was an interlocutory scheduling order, not a final decision on the merits, and therefore could not be reviewed under Rule 120.

The request for review was dismissed.

The appellant requested a review of a Board disposition that set the Commencement Day for a number of assessment appeals.

The Board considered whether a scheduling disposition qualifies as a 'final decision' under Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board held that procedural rulings and scheduling orders do not finally dispose of the merits of a case and are therefore not subject to review under Rule 120.

The request for review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties requested a further continuation of a previously granted stay of portions of the Director's Order, on consent, to allow time to finalize a detailed work plan.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay until March 28, 2018.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Board granted party status on consent to the Annex Residents Corporation and two adjacent property owners.

The Board also granted an adjournment of the pre-hearing conference to allow the City Heritage Committee to consider a modified development proposal that would preserve the existing heritage building.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to carry out work items relating to discharges from their greenhouse operation.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants complied with the order and the parties agreed to withdraw the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant brought a motion to waive the requirements for giving notice to nearby property owners and holding a pre-hearing conference prior to the Tribunal considering a proposed settlement of its appeal regarding a waste disposal site.

The appellant and the Director argued that notice was unnecessary as the appeal was being withdrawn and the issues were regulatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has jurisdiction to convene a pre-hearing conference to consider status requests before reviewing a settlement, and that waiving notice requirements was inappropriate given the public interest mandate of the environmental legislation.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties had been working on a conceptual site model and requested more time to finalize it.

The Director consented to the request.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until December 28, 2017.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request while the parties worked to finalize a conceptual site model.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until October 27, 2017.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to review an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their application for costs against Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

MBQ argued that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider their unique circumstances as a First Nation at the first stage of the costs analysis (determining whether conduct was unreasonable).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no error of law in the original panel's application of the three-stage costs analysis under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order relating to environmental contamination on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request to allow the parties time to finalize a conceptual site model and prepare for carrying out the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until September 28, 2017.

The applicants brought motions to review a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for leave to appeal an amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to an asphalt plant.

The applicants argued the previous panel made material errors of law and fact regarding municipal zoning, noise by-laws, and environmental guidelines.

The Tribunal applied the lower threshold for review and found no material errors of law or fact that would likely have changed the result.

The motions for review were dismissed.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a hearing regarding an objection by the applicant to the respondent's Notice of Intention to Designate a property.

The order established dates for the hearing, site visit, and the exchange of expert witness disclosure documents and agreed statements of fact.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for air discharges at an agricultural material processing site.

The appellants brought a motion seeking a stay of Item 3 of the order pending the disposition of their appeals.

The Director consented to the stay without condition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar to granting the stay and granted the motion on consent.