Maureen Carter-Whitney

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a second, detached dwelling on a property in the Escarpment Rural Area.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development did not comply with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which generally permits only one single dwelling per lot.

The proposal did not meet the criteria for a secondary dwelling unit because it would be detached and larger than the existing dwelling.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the application was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to convert the upper floor of an existing barn into a commercial rental facility for weekend weddings.

The central issue was whether the proposed wedding barn constituted an 'on-farm diversified use' (OFDU) under the new Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Panel found that the proposed development, limited to 30 events annually with a maximum of 175 guests, was secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, compatible with the rural character of the area, and met all applicable development criteria.

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

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Approval Holder and the Director brought motions to strike the Notice of Appeal and dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised issues unrelated to the specific amendment, which only allowed for an alternate transformer.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to allege any harm arising specifically from the amendment.

The Director and the Approval Holder brought motions to strike the appellant's Notice of Appeal regarding an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and the appellant's witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to two entities.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a second dwelling on a property.

At a pre-hearing conference, nine area residents sought participant status.

The Hearing Officers granted participant status to all nine residents, finding their interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing.

Procedural directions were issued and the hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to ensure proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

After several adjournments to allow the appellant to complete the required work, the Director was satisfied that the appellant had complied with the substance of the order.

The appellant subsequently withdrew its appeal on consent.

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

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles at a site in Toronto following a fire.

After negotiations, the Director confirmed the revised operation plan complied with the order.

The appellants withdrew their appeals and stay motion on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to wash water and solid waste from their truck washing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants resolved the issues with the Director and formally withdrew their appeals without requiring any alteration to the Order.

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

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a barn, storage facilities, and other structures.

Two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants failed to appear at the peremptory pre-hearing conference.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the appeals under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Rules and confirmed the Commission's decision pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office held a series of pre-hearing conferences regarding appeals of a development permit approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The permit allowed the applicant to construct agricultural and retail structures on a property in the Escarpment Protection Area.

Following several teleconferences where settlement discussions and revised site plans were considered, the Hearing Officers issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document disclosure, issues lists, and the final hearing dates.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to solid waste and wash water generated by their truck washing facility.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference and issued an order setting the dates for the hearing and a schedule for disclosure.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties consented to the stay to allow for further on-site work and review by the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and (3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay and granted the continuation on consent until September 30, 2017.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

The Director consented to the stay to allow for the review of a recently prepared report.

The Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay, as the order did not require monitoring, recording, or reporting, and the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles following a fire at their site.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a scheduled stay motion and asked the Tribunal to provide mediation services prior to the Pre-hearing Conference (PHC).

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent but denied the request for early Tribunal-assisted mediation, finding that its rules and practice require the PHC to occur first to ensure all interested persons have an opportunity to participate.

The appellant requested a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to establish proper cover over buried fibreglass waste on its property.

The stay was requested on consent to allow the parties additional time for investigations and negotiations to resolve the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the order was not an order to monitor, record or report under s. 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, and that a brief stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3).

The Tribunal granted the consent stay until July 31, 2017.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a church property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that varied the compliance dates for the removal of the waste ash and required interim monitoring and capping.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the amendment of the Director's Order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct additions to an existing greenhouse complex.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew his 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 a Director's Order regarding waste street sweepings under the Environmental Protection Act.

Following an agreement between the parties, the Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the Director to amend the Order to reflect new completion dates for specific work items.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for environmental remediation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the conditions of approval to address concerns regarding species at risk and their habitats.

The Hearing Officers found the revised conditions to be in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and confirmed the decision to issue the permit with the revised conditions.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct additions to an existing greenhouse complex.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officer granted party status to three nearby property owners.

The Hearing Officer also determined that this appeal and a related appeal concerning a dug pond on the same property would be heard consecutively, rather than combined, due to a lack of consent from all parties.

Finally, the Hearing Officer scheduled hearing dates and document disclosure deadlines, while scheduling a further pre-hearing conference to address any potential prejudice arising from pending freedom of information requests.