Amanda Landre

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of conditions imposed on an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for a decommissioned uranium mine, the parties finalized a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The parties disputed the order of evidence for the upcoming merits hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks present evidence first, finding it necessary to explain the regulatory framework and rationale for the appealed conditions.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Denison Mines Inc. of conditions attached to an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for the decommissioning of a former uranium mine.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment to facilitate settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of Condition 5.4 of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the decommissioning of a former uranium mine.

The parties reached a proposed resolution to stay the condition, subject to alternative monitoring and reporting requirements.

The Tribunal found that the statutory tests for a stay under the Environmental Protection Act were met, as the proposed stay would not hinder monitoring, cause danger to human health, or impair the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to conduct an environmental site assessment regarding soil and groundwater contamination.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing.

On consent of the Director, the Tribunal also ordered a stay of items 1 through 6 of the Director's Order pending the completion of the hearing.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to conduct an environmental site assessment regarding contaminated soil and groundwater at a property.

During a status conference, the appellants sought an interim stay of the order, citing unaffordable costs and denying responsibility for the contamination.

The Director consented to an interim stay of items 1 through 9 of the order to allow time to consider whether to consent to a full stay pending the hearing of the appeals.

The Tribunal granted the interim stay on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop a work plan to remove underground fuel tanks and delineate soil and groundwater contamination at a former retail fuel outlet they purchased at a municipal tax sale.

The appellants argued the Ministry should have pursued the former owner's estate or the adjoining property owner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants were the current owners and managers of the site, and the uncontradicted expert evidence established that the order was necessary and advisable to protect the environment from petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's non-decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications for a 630-unit residential development.

A previously scheduled settlement hearing was delayed due to a cyber security attack on the City.

The parties requested additional time for document review and sought to schedule a new half-day settlement hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled the settlement hearing for May 27, 2024.

The appellants brought a motion for a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to remove underground fuel tanks and conduct environmental investigations at a gas bar property.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had already fully complied with the seven items in the Order prior to the hearing.

As the appellants had not suffered irreparable harm and the request was effectively moot, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay.

The applicant appealed the Director's refusal to renew his Class 1 Water Distribution Certificate.

The applicant, who had been a license holder since 2005, sustained injuries that rendered him unable to complete the mandatory 56 on-the-job training hours required for recertification under Ontario Regulation 128/04.

The Tribunal found that neither the Safe Drinking Water Act nor the Regulation grants it jurisdiction to vary the mandatory requirements for recertification.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

A second case management conference was held concerning an appeal of a Director's order to remove underground fuel tanks and piping at a gas bar.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to confirm whether it intends to continue with its appeal, given recent developments.

If the appeal proceeds, the Tribunal set dates for a stay motion, the filing of a draft procedural order, and a one-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of underground fuel tanks and piping at a gas bar, and sought an interim stay of the Order pending a full stay motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal denied the interim stay because the appellant failed to provide substantive submissions or evidence of irreparable harm, despite being given multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal scheduled the full stay motion for a later date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The applications seek to permit a 630-unit residential development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties to govern the upcoming 12-day merit hearing.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot-mix asphalt plant to operate in conjunction with an existing quarry.

The Applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the Director failed to properly consider the Statement of Environmental Values, cumulative effects, common law rights, and applicable guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have made the decision, as the Director appropriately considered the relevant studies, policies, and mitigation measures.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a new understanding of a set-back line necessitated a revised development plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to consider the new plan and engage in Tribunal-led mediation.

The appellant appealed a compliance order issued by Animal Welfare Services regarding the care of several captive wildlife species at his facility.

The Board found that the animals were in distress because their enclosures were too small to allow for natural movement and exercise, and they lacked adequate enrichment.

The Board confirmed the compliance order but extended the deadline for compliance by 30 days to allow for the construction of outdoor enclosures.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to assess and remediate a failing septic system at their RV resort.

The Ministry presented evidence of sewage ponding and saturation, arguing that the system posed risks to human health and the environment.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that a professional assessment and interim remedial measures were necessary.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Director's Order was confirmed and amended to include additional required actions to prevent further environmental harm.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to sewage works at a camping and RV resort and requested a stay.

The parties consented to an interim stay pending the disposition of the stay motion.

The Tribunal found it had the statutory authority under the Ontario Water Resources Act to grant the interim stay, as it would not cause immediate environmental harm, and granted the request.

The appellant appealed conditions imposed under an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding its animal by-product processing plant, specifically concerning odour unit limits.

Prior to the scheduled three-week hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, vacated the previously set hearing dates, and scheduled a settlement hearing to be held by video.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amended Environmental Compliance Approval permitting a cement manufacturing facility to increase its use of alternative low-carbon fuels from 96 to 400 tonnes per day.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable because it failed to impose stringent emissions standards, lacked comprehensive ambient air monitoring, and failed to properly consider the Ministry's Statement of Environmental Values, including the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The evidence demonstrated the Director relied on comprehensive scientific studies showing the expanded use of alternative fuels would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts and would comply with applicable provincial air standards.