Maureen Carter-Whitney

The applicant, a condominium owner, brought applications alleging that the condominium corporation failed to consistently enforce its pet and parking rules and failed to provide a requested record (a grounds map).

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the board acted reasonably and within its discretion in enforcing the outdated rules while in the process of updating them.

The Tribunal also found that the corporation did not refuse to provide the requested record, as it provided the map as soon as it was located.

The applications were dismissed, and no costs or penalties were awarded.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to enforce its pet rules against the respondent unit owner, alleging her two large dogs barked excessively, were off-leash on common elements, and their excrement was not cleaned up.

The Tribunal found the respondent in breach of the condominium's declaration and rules based on credible evidence from neighbours.

The Tribunal ordered the permanent removal of the dogs from the unit within 30 days and awarded the condominium corporation $8,273.56 in costs, including pre-litigation enforcement costs and a portion of the Tribunal proceeding costs.

In a condominium dispute, the respondent requested to provide late evidence and submitted highly sensitive personal information in support of the request.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal considered the open court principle and the exception established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

Finding that the dissemination of the information could constitute an affront to the respondent's dignity, the Tribunal ordered that the exhibits containing the personal information be deemed confidential and excluded from the public record.

The applicant initiated three separate cases against the respondent condominium corporation regarding parking rules, pet rules, and a related records request.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal sought submissions on whether to merge the cases to be heard together at Stage 3.

While the applicant consented to merging two of the cases, he opposed merging the records request case.

The Tribunal found that because the records request related to the subject matter of the pet rules case, merging all three cases would provide the most fair, focused, and efficient process without prejudicing either party.

The Tribunal ordered the three cases to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.2 of the CAT Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought location approval for a proposed dam and hydroelectric facility under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry issued a Notice of Intention to Refuse Location Approval, citing uncertainty regarding areas to be flooded and insufficient hydrological data.

The applicant requested an inquiry.

The Inquiry Officers found that the applicant's hydraulic modelling was reliable and sufficient to predict that water level changes would remain within natural fluctuations, resulting in negligible biological impacts.

The Inquiry Officers also found the applicant's Aboriginal consultation efforts to be adequate.

Concluding that the intended refusal was not fair, sound, or reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act, the Inquiry Officers recommended that the Minister approve the location of the proposed dam subject to conditions.

Goldcorp applied under section 175(1) of the Mining Act for a grant of surface rights over lands required to redevelop the Dome Underground and Open Pit mines.

Goldcorp owned the underlying mining rights but not the surface rights, which were held by various co-owners, many of whom were deceased or unlocatable.

After providing notice as ordered by the Tribunal, Goldcorp acquired the interests of the known and locatable heirs.

The Tribunal found that the surface rights were essential for the proper working of the mine and granted an order vesting the requested surface rights in Goldcorp.

The appellants appealed a preventative measures order issued by the Director under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act regarding a steel mill and mining operations.

The order was issued in response to risks related to the insolvency of Essar Steel Algoma Inc. The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeal proceedings to finalize a settlement agreement in the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a status update telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed the cancellation of 18 mining claims by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

The claims were cancelled because the lands were not legally open for mining claim registration at the time of registration.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant did not file any submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to section 4.6(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Procedural Rules, finding it lacked jurisdiction because there were no legally existing mining claims to register.

The applicant proposed a dam and hydroelectric facility, which the Minister intended to refuse.

The applicant requested an inquiry under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) sought to be added as a party to the inquiry, arguing the decision would set a precedent for the waterpower industry.

The Inquiry Officers denied the request, finding that a concern about potential precedential effect is insufficient to establish a 'direct interest' as required by the Act.

The Receiver for Northwood Recycling & Energy Inc. appealed a Director's Order requiring work at a waste disposal site.

Following an inspection confirming full compliance with the work items, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement, which revoked the Director's Order and dismissed the proceeding, to be consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order setting dates for the disclosure of documents, exchange of witness statements, and the hearing of the appeal.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order adjourning the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Nation Rise Wind Farm on its own initiative for 44 days.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written closing submissions on health and wildlife issues according to the previously established schedule, and to propose a revised schedule for the completion of the hearing of groundwater evidence.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a single dwelling and associated structures.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the withdrawal of the appeal resulted in the automatic confirmation of the Commission's decision.

The hearing was cancelled.

The appellant appealed the issuance of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

At a pre-hearing conference, several individuals and entities sought participant or presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the status requests but considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear evidence on all issues raised, including economic impacts and general animal health.

The Tribunal held that under the Environmental Protection Act, its jurisdiction is strictly limited to whether the project will cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that evidence regarding economic impacts and issues not pleaded in the Notice of Appeal were outside the scope of the hearing and could not be presented.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter and participant status to several individuals and entities.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions, including deadlines for document exchange and scheduling the hearing dates, while excluding certain issues from the scope of the hearing.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement a remedial action plan to address diesel contamination originating from a concrete batch plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the installation of a barrier wall, additional groundwater monitoring, and financial assurance.

The Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement under Rule 201 of its Rules of Practice, found the agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to protect the natural environment, and dismissed the appeals, directing the Director to amend the order accordingly.

The appellants sought to appeal a Provincial Officer's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Director requested the appeals be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellants failed to request a review of the order by the Director within the statutory seven-day limit.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that under s. 140 of the Act, an appeal only lies from a Director's order.

Since no review was requested, no Director's order was made or deemed made.

The appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 119 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding a waste disposal site.

At a pre-hearing conference, the City of Oshawa and the Ummah Foundation sought and were granted participant status without objection.

The parties jointly requested and were granted an adjournment of the pre-hearing conference to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and to address a related jurisdictional motion filed in court.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a single dwelling and other structures.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Town of Pelham requested party status, arguing it had a genuine interest because the subject property was within its boundaries and it objected to the application on the basis that the lot was not created through a Planning Act process.

The appellant opposed the request, asserting the Town had already recognized the lot by collecting property taxes.

The Hearing Panel granted the Town party status, finding its interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing.