Albert M. Engel

A corporate appellant appealed convictions and sentence under the Environmental Protection Act for depositing waste at an unapproved site and transporting waste without approval.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the finding that the appellant hauled waste from a known waste-laden source site to the destination property, and that competing-source theories were speculative.

The due diligence defence failed because the appellant took no independent steps to verify that the material was clean fill and relied solely on a customer's verbal assurance in a heavily regulated environmental context.

The court also held that the two offences were legally distinct for Kienapple purposes, found the reasons sufficient, and upheld the total fine of $50,000 as fit.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an order by the Deputy Registrar of the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority.

The Appellant requested time to finalize a retainer with a Producer Responsibility Organization to comply with the order.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 17, 2026, to allow the Appellant to achieve compliance.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the end date of the merit hearing from Friday, June 24, 2025, to Friday, June 20, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal referred by the Ministry of Natural Resources relating to an application for a Class A aggregate license for a proposed pit.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a nine-day merit hearing, and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Stop Petersburg Sand Pit Inc. against the Township of Wilmot's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The Parties advised that a related Aggregate Resources Act licence application is nearing completion and will likely be referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that a second Case Management Conference be scheduled once the referral is confirmed, and directed the Applicant to provide monthly status updates.

The plaintiff demolition subcontractor brought a lien action for unpaid work, and the defendant general contractor counterclaimed for damages caused when the plaintiff severed an underground electrical duct bank, causing a power outage at a wastewater treatment plant.

The court found the plaintiff breached its subcontract and was negligent by failing to review drawings, obtain locates, and follow its own demolition plan.

However, the court also found the defendant 15% contributorily negligent for failing to communicate its knowledge of the duct bank to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's lien claim was offset against 85% of the defendant's damages, resulting in a net judgment payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Zurich, the surety for the insolvent general contractor Bondfield, brought a motion to intervene as a party in a construction lien reference.

Zurich sought to participate in a vetting committee for the distribution of the owner's holdback among the timely lien claimants.

The court granted the motion, finding that Zurich had a direct interest in the holdback because it had made significant holdback advances to the major electrical and mechanical trades and had taken partial assignments of their lien rights.

The court ordered the timely claimants to pay Zurich's costs of $30,000.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an upcoming 14-day video hearing regarding appeals by Ashley Heritage Joint Venture and 840966 Ontario Ltd. The appeals relate to the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision to permit residential and commercial development.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and key filing dates for the parties.

The moving parties, Soil Engineering, Bernard Lee, and Priestly Demolition Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, to dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff's claim primarily focused on the Town of Newmarket's alleged frustration of his efforts to obtain building permits.

The court found that the statement of claim contained no allegations of wrongdoing against the moving parties and struck the claim against them.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, finding it was not the clearest of cases to deny leave.

The court declined to dismiss the entire action as frivolous or vexatious, noting that some claims against the Town might have a reasonable possibility of success.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 324.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on March 14, 2022, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The East Beach Community Association was granted participant status on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil/sediment remediation and brought a motion for a stay.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend certain compliance dates and sampling requirements in the Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, and ordered the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellants withdrew their stay motion without prejudice.

The plaintiff sued its former defence counsel for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the lawyer misrepresented a settlement offer from the Crown in an underlying environmental prosecution, which led the plaintiff's insurer to cap coverage.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

After a mini-trial to resolve credibility issues, the court found that the lawyer accurately reported the conditional nature of the settlement discussions and did not misrepresent the offer.

The court also found no conflict of interest and held that the lawyer acted reasonably and upon instructions in providing a case assessment memorandum to the insurer.

The summary judgment motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on a winery corporation that pleaded guilty to discharging material into a watercourse in violation of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The trial judge imposed a fine of $600, invoking section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to relieve the defendant from the statutory minimum fine of $25,000.

The appeal judge increased the fine to $5,000, still below the minimum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed the minimum fine of $25,000, holding that section 59(2) must be applied with appropriate restraint to avoid undermining the deterrent purpose of minimum fines in public welfare legislation.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to prevent the dismissal of its action for delay.

The defendants opposed the motion, seeking dismissal of the action against them.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay, which included ongoing settlement discussions and issues related to the decommissioning of a gas station site.

The court also determined that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

Consequently, the motion was granted, the action was allowed to proceed, and a timetable for the remaining steps was ordered.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm, arguing the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appellant relied primarily on lay witnesses expressing concerns about noise, shadow flicker, aviation safety, and impacts on species at risk, supported by one expert whose evidence was found insufficient.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus under the Environmental Protection Act, as the evidence amounted only to expressions of concern and was contradicted by the respondents' extensive expert evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the approval holder's mid-hearing non-suit motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to establish a prima facie case, noting a lack of submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of such a motion in the public interest context of REA appeals.

The appeal was dismissed and the REA confirmed.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter status to the Township of Norwich on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also issued detailed procedural directions for the main hearing, including deadlines for witness statements, expert qualifications, and final submissions.

Suncor Energy Products Inc. brought an application to quash several municipal by-laws passed by the Town of Plympton-Wyoming that restricted the development of a wind farm project.

The court found that By-Law 50 of 2012 was invalid for vagueness and uncertainty, and conflicted with provincial legislation regarding renewable energy approvals.

The court also quashed portions of By-Law 6 of 2012 relating to building permit fees and security deposits, and portions of By-Law 75 of 2012 imposing development charges for wind turbines, finding them ultra vires.

The court declared that the Town's zoning by-laws passed under the Planning Act did not apply to the renewable energy undertaking.

The appellant, Consbec Inc., appealed a sentencing decision arising from a guilty plea to permitting a blast that carried fly rock beyond the limits of a quarry property in violation of the Environmental Protection Act.

The trial Justice of the Peace imposed a fine and a restitution order of $10,000 to compensate for damage to a neighboring well.

The appellant challenged the qualification of the Crown's expert witness and the sufficiency of reasons for the decision.

The appeal court upheld the trial decision, finding that the expert qualification was properly exercised and that the reasons, while not extensive, were sufficient to support the conclusion that the blast caused damage to the well water quality.