Stay of Director's Order extended on consent to allow parties to finalize environmental remedial actions.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.
The parties requested on consent that the proceeding be adjourned and the existing stay of the order be extended to allow time to finalize remedial actions.
The Tribunal found no concerns under section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the requested extension and adjournment.
Stay of environmental remediation order extended on consent pending finalization of restorative action plans.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order concerning groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.
Following negotiations, Nortel and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change reached a framework agreement regarding remediation.
The parties consented to an order extending the stay of certain items in the Director's Order until June 30, 2015, and requiring Nortel to submit revised restorative action plans.
The Tribunal accepted the consent order, finding no bars to the stay under the Environmental Protection Act.
Tribunal grants consent order continuing stay and accepting partial withdrawal of environmental remediation appeal.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order concerning groundwater contamination remediation.
Following negotiations and related court proceedings, the parties agreed to amend the stay of the order and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal, save for two specific issues regarding future work plans and management/control.
The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay and accepted the partial withdrawal of the appeal on consent.
Tribunal approves revocation of environmental remediation order following settlement and issuance of new order.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial measures for groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.
Following a settlement agreement where Nortel agreed to pay $300,000 to the new property owner (Taggart) and Taggart agreed to a new Director's Order requiring remediation backed by financial assurance, the Director proposed to revoke the original order.
The Tribunal found the proposed revocation was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.
Motion to continue stay of vacancy rebate decision pending appeal dismissed.
The City of Ottawa requested that a stay of the implementation of a previous Assessment Review Board decision, which granted a vacancy rebate to Walkley Self Storage Corporation, be continued pending the City's motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.
The Board declined to continue the stay and ordered it lifted, finding that the City would not suffer substantial prejudice by paying the rebate and that the Municipal Act provides a mechanism for recovery if the rebate is ultimately found to have been paid in error.
Motion to review dismissed; vacant self-storage units are eligible for property tax vacancy rebates.
The City of Ottawa brought a motion to review a decision of the Assessment Review Board that granted a vacancy rebate to the respondent for vacant units in its self-storage facility.
The City argued the Board erred in law by following a line of cases that found self-storage units eligible for the rebate, rather than another line of cases that found such units were 'inventory' occupied by the operator.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the original decision reasonably interpreted the vacancy rebate provisions of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01 in the context of the Assessment Act.
The Board confirmed that self-storage units fall under the definition of 'land' subject to taxation, and therefore, vacant units meeting the legislative criteria are eligible for the vacancy rebate.
Costs of $6,403.34 awarded against municipality for unreasonable conduct in property assessment appeal.
Following a successful property assessment appeal where the assessment was reduced from $1,173,000 to $525,000, the assessed person applied for costs against the Town of Fort Erie.
The Board had previously found the municipality's actions to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, noting its intransigence was unsupported by reliable evidence and amounted to an abuse of power.
The assessed person requested $6,405.34 in costs.
The municipality did not respond to the application.
The Board granted the costs award in the amount of $6,403.34.