Robert V. Wright

Following a hearing regarding a development permit for water-skiing competitions, three parties brought applications for costs.

The applicant company sought costs against the Town of Mono, alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith.

The Town and a citizens' coalition sought costs against the company, citing a frivolous post-hearing motion and disrespectful conduct.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the company's application, finding the Town's conduct was reasonable and in good faith.

The Hearing Officers granted the Town's and the coalition's applications in part, finding the company's post-hearing motion was unreasonable and frivolous.

The company was ordered to pay $2,000 to the Town and $500 to the coalition.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 65 Ward Street in Port Hope.

The Board issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for February 2019, establishing deadlines for the exchange of witness lists and documents, and outlining the issues to be addressed at the hearing.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission approved a development permit for 2222699 Ontario Inc. to host water-skiing competitions on a pond in a former gravel pit.

Several neighbours, the Town of Mono, and the applicant appealed the decision.

The Hearing Officers found that the originally approved development of four 2.5-day events was too intensive and not a permitted use in the Escarpment Protection Area.

However, they recommended approval of a redefined proposal for two events per year with a maximum of 40 competitors, subject to strict conditions including a three-year review period, noise controls, and a fuel contingency plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry accepted the recommendation and directed the issuance of the modified permit.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection by the University of Toronto to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property.

The order set the hearing dates, established the list of parties and participants, and outlined the schedule for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and documentary evidence.

The Objector requested an adjournment of the Conservation Review Board proceeding regarding a heritage designation pending an Ontario Municipal Board hearing concerning the same property.

The City of Toronto and a residents' association opposed the adjournment.

The Review Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the heritage determination was not contingent on the OMB matter and that scheduling the hearing would best serve the just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Board granted party status on consent to the Annex Residents Corporation and two adjacent property owners.

The Board also granted an adjournment of the pre-hearing conference to allow the City Heritage Committee to consider a modified development proposal that would preserve the existing heritage building.

The objector initiated a proceeding to object to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector subsequently failed to participate in three scheduled pre-hearing conference calls and did not respond to the Conservation Review Board's communications.

The Board found that the objector's conduct caused undue delay and prevented the fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.

Consequently, the Board exercised its discretion under Rule 15.03 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to dismiss the proceeding.

This is a procedural order from a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection by R.D. Perkins Family Holdings Ltd. to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property in Cambridge, Ontario.

The parties advised of ongoing settlement negotiations but agreed to set a hearing date.

The Conservation Review Board scheduled the hearing for February 12 and 13, 2018, and set a further pre-hearing conference for January 4, 2018, to determine disclosure matters and whether the hearing will proceed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to prevent adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants at a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties agreed to two work plans and requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for the implementation of these plans and to amend the compliance dates in the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found the adjournment request fair and reasonable under Rule 105 and granted the adjournment to June 2017 for a status update.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

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

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.

In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.

The owners of a designated heritage property requested that the Town of Goderich repeal the designating by-law.

The Town Council agreed and issued a notice of intention to repeal.

Two residents objected, and the matter was referred to the Conservation Review Board.

The Board found that the property retained its heritage attributes and that the Town Council erred in failing to consider the heritage designation criteria when deciding to repeal the by-law.

The Board recommended that the designating by-law not be repealed.

The appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry herpetologist to testify about impacts on Blanding's turtles.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons but simultaneously granted the proposed witness's application to cancel it, finding that while the evidence was relevant, it was not necessary because the appellant was already calling its own expert on the subject.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The appellant in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to perform work on sewage works.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellants replaced the sewage system under the Ontario Building Code, obtained necessary permits, and removed components from the shore road allowance.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed Director's Orders regarding the containment and monitoring of groundwater contamination.

Following a previous Tribunal order upholding the Director's Orders, the appellant withdrew the Notices of Allegation against third parties.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval granted to the approval holder for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered unopposed requests for participant and presenter status from various individuals and organizations.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a conservation authority and a local resident, and presenter status to a naturalist group and a citizens' coalition.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the proceeding.

Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.