Jerry V. DeMarco

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the cleanup and removal of asbestos waste material on his property.

After completing the cleanup to the Director's satisfaction, the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that did not alter the approval.

The appellant withdrew the appeal on consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without costs pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

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 Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

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 appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to meet sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements for a sewage disposal system at a mobile home park.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement extending the compliance deadlines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the environmental protection objectives of the legislation, accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the Director to amend the order accordingly.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

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 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 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.

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 moving parties brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board state a case to the Divisional Court under section 43(1) of the Assessment Act.

The proposed question asked whether the market value of rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the question was either a mixed question of fact and law or a question of law that would attract deference on a reasonableness standard.

The Board concluded that specialized tribunals should not bypass their statutory role by referring questions to the court that the tribunal is expected to answer itself, even when all parties consent.

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 appellant, RPL Recycling & Transfer Limited, appealed a Director's Order regarding its waste transfer station and sought an extension of a previously granted stay.

At a preliminary hearing, a neighbouring business, Hymopack Limited, requested party or participant status due to concerns about dust and site operations.

The Tribunal granted Hymopack the option to choose either party or participant status.

The Tribunal also extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow the appellant time to amend its Certificate of Approval, adjourning the preliminary hearing to a later teleconference.