Laurie Bruce

The appellant appealed an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval for its quarry.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties requested a three-month adjournment to allow the Ministry to review concurrent applications for the quarry and a neighbouring grinding facility.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a continuation of the pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to two individuals who had previously been granted Presenter status under the former Environmental Review Tribunal rules.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a large dwelling and accessory structures.

During a telephone conference call to finalize the issues list, the Hearing Officer determined that issues related to an adjacent quarry lake were not properly before the Tribunal.

The issues list was finalized, with the primary remaining issue being the location of the septic bed, and the hearing was reduced to a single day.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a small winery facility, citing concerns about existing traffic on the adjacent road.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed winery would generate minimal traffic and would not exacerbate existing conditions.

The appeal was dismissed without a full hearing under s. 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act because it lacked a planning justification, and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The applicant sought a development permit to construct a garage on a property within the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

Several neighbours appealed the conditional approval, raising concerns about visual impact, potential use as a second dwelling, and septic capacity.

Following pre-hearing conferences, the parties agreed to modified conditions requiring a landscape plan for vegetative screening and a restriction registered on title prohibiting use as a dwelling.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the modified decision pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit issued to the applicant for the construction of a one and a half storey accessory building.

During pre-hearing conferences, the applicant re-designed the proposed garage to include recreation facilities requiring water and sewage servicing.

The Hearing Officer issued a procedural order directing the applicant to provide information on sewage management and a drawing depicting the visual relationship between the residence and the garage.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission was also directed to provide draft wording for conditions regarding a landscape plan and restricting the use of the garage as a second dwelling.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a two-storey dwelling and sewage system.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with the character of the Minor Urban Centre and that the sewage system was improperly located near a key hydrologic feature.

The Hearing Officers accepted the expert planning evidence that the development maintained the area's character and met growth objectives.

They also found the drainage area was not a key hydrologic feature and the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion regarding the sewage system setback.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a single dwelling.

The original application was for a larger dwelling, but the applicant had revised the proposal to a smaller dwelling.

Due to an administrative error, the Commission approved the larger dwelling.

On appeal, the parties agreed to modify the conditions of approval to reference the revised site plan for the smaller dwelling.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the decision with the revised conditions pursuant to s. 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system.

Following mediation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement setting out technical steps for rehabilitation and monitoring.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call where the parties provided an update on the implementation of the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered a further status update to be held by telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officers found that the appellant failed to comply with previous procedural orders requiring him to refine his issues list and confirm the retention of expert witnesses.

The Tribunal warned the appellant of the potential consequences of non-compliance, including dismissal of the appeal, and imposed a final deadline for the appellant to identify his expert witnesses and the specific issues they would address at the merits hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend and revocation of Environmental Compliance Approvals for a waste transfer station and air emissions.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellant, Wessuc Inc., appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease operation of a vehicle and retain a Qualified Person to inspect and repair it for emissions tampering.

Following several prehearing conference calls, the appellant complied with the Order and withdrew its appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed the approval of a development permit for a single dwelling on the Niagara Escarpment.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officers reviewed the appellant's preliminary issues list.

The Hearing Officers struck several issues related to the Commission's internal processes, standards, and notification procedures, finding the NEHO lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them.

The appellant was directed to refine the remaining issues and confirm the retention of a technical consultant for the merits hearing.

The appellant appealed the approval of a development permit application for the construction of a single dwelling.

A pre-hearing conference was held to identify parties and provide procedural directions.

The Hearing Officer granted participant status to two entities and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference to facilitate discussions to narrow the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease the use of an unregistered methyl bromide pesticide product and prepare a disposal plan.

Prior to the motion hearing for a stay, the appellant withdrew its appeal with the consent of the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the motion for a stay in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued for a sewage treatment plant discharging into the Winnipeg River.

The applicant argued that updated water quality baseline studies and tertiary treatment were required.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that while the applicant had the right to seek leave to appeal under s. 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, he failed to meet the test for leave under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the effluent limits were protective of the river and concluded the applicant did not demonstrate that no reasonable person could have issued the ECA.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy applied for development permits to sever three lots and establish building footprints.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approved the permits.

Several property owners appealed the decision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a minor modification to a property boundary to address concerns about a 'pinch point' on the Bruce Trail.

The Hearing Officer found the modification to be minor and confirmed the Commission's decision with the revised site plan.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot.

The appellant raised concerns about the impact of tree removal on a shared woodlot and requested additional tree planting conditions.

The Hearing Office found that the proposed development was a permitted use, consistent with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Provincial Policy Statement, and that the existing conditions of approval adequately addressed tree removal impacts.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The applicant sought $51,562.22 in costs against the appellant following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal of a development permit for a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, alleging he caused unnecessary delays and presented misleading evidence.

The Hearing Officer applied the three-step test for costs and found that the appellant's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just and expeditious determination.

The application for costs was dismissed.

The Town of Ajax issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring the appellants to pay costs incurred by the municipality in cleaning up a spill.

The appellants appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, the settlement funds were paid, and the Town rescinded the order.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order to be consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, and accordingly revoked the order and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant sought to have three Permits to Take Water issued to Goodyear Farm Ltd. revoked under section 61(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that section 61(1) provides for a review by the Minister, not the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.