Administrative Law

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act where the Children's Aid Society sought to place a 10-year-old child in the care of the father for ten months subject to society supervision, with access to the mother in the society's discretion.

The mother opposed the application and sought custody.

The mother was self-represented and had previously had three legal aid-funded lawyers whose relationships with her had broken down.

The court considered whether to order state-funded counsel for the mother or appoint amicus curiae.

The court appointed amicus curiae to assist in presenting the mother's case fairly to the court, finding this was the appropriate remedy to protect the mother's Charter section 7 rights while ensuring timely resolution of the child's status.

A ruling on a voir dire concerning the admissibility of Approximate Regulation Limit (A.R.L.) maps created by the Halton Region Conservation Authority.

The prosecution sought to admit these maps as evidence to establish the regulatory jurisdiction of the Authority over properties at 7459 Auburn Road, Milton, Ontario.

The defendants challenged admissibility on hearsay grounds.

The court determined that the A.R.L. maps, created pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06, constitute part of the regulation itself and are therefore admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act as copies of regulations.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for road reconstruction, several individuals and organizations requested party, participant, or presenter status.

The Hearing Officers granted the requests, finding that the applicants met the respective requirements under the Rules of Practice, as their interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing and they had a genuine interest in the subject matter.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County brought a motion to stay a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind power project pending the disposition of its appeal.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing and site preparation would cause irreparable harm to the threatened Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Environmental Review Tribunal found that there was a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm would ensue to the spring foraging habitat of the Blanding's Turtle, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part, halting vegetation clearing in identified spring foraging habitat.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act against several persons to recover costs incurred for cleaning up a spill.

Several named persons appealed the order.

The Region subsequently advised the Tribunal that it intended to revoke the order against four of the appellants, as they did not have ownership or control of the pollutants.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation to be consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, revoked the order against those four appellants, and dismissed their appeals.

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

At a preliminary hearing, the appellants sought a stay of the order pending the resolution of the appeals.

The Director consented to a stay of most items in the order, as there was no evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part and also granted participant status to the City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association for the purpose of a forthcoming motion to revoke the order against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued an order regarding a spill of environmental contaminants at a site in Fort Erie.

Several parties appealed the order.

After the required remediation work was completed by some of the appellants, the Director proposed to revoke the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the proposed revocation to be consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal revoked the order and dismissed the appeals.

The Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the closure of the Richmond Landfill Site.

The Tribunal considered the final wording of the conditions, rejecting an additional sentence proposed by the appellant regarding the delineation of leachate-impacted groundwater as redundant.

The Tribunal also granted an extension of time for the instrument holder to complete required work.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Director was ordered to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following the revocation of a 2013 Director's Order and the dismissal of the related appeal proceeding.

Peel argued the Director's conduct was unreasonable due to delays in issuing a new 2015 Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the Baker standard and found that the Director's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The costs application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application for upgrades to an existing campground resort.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake requested party status and the Niagara Parks Commission requested participant status.

The Hearing Officers granted both requests, finding that the Town had a genuine public interest and could make a relevant contribution, and that the Parks Commission had a genuine public interest.

The pre-hearing conference was adjourned to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The moving party, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, sought an interim stay of physical activities associated with a renewable energy approval for a wind power project, pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing would cause irreparable harm to Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

The Tribunal found that while harm to active turtles was not demonstrated, there was sufficient evidence that irreparable harm to vegetation and spring foraging habitat could occur.

The balance of convenience favoured the moving party, and the interim stay was granted.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project pending the scheduling of a motion hearing for a full stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the interim stay, with reasons to follow, and directed that the hearing of the motion for a stay be scheduled in writing as soon as possible.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay of a renewable energy approval for a wind power generation project, seeking to halt vegetation clearing and site preparation.

The moving party argued that the proposed work would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its evidence was speculative and did not account for the mitigation and avoidance measures required by the approval.

The Tribunal also found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

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 appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the removal of waste and installation of spill containment structures at a waste transfer site.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement and requested the revocation of the Order.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the waste removal requirements and was working towards compliance with the spill containment requirements under the supervision of the local Ministry office.

The Tribunal concluded that revoking the Order was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendants moved to stay a civil action brought by an RCMP member alleging assault, sexual assault, harassment, and related torts arising during her service on the RCMP Musical Ride.

The moving party argued that under s. 111 of the Pension Act and s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the action must be stayed until the plaintiff applied for and exhausted the statutory pension process for disability benefits arising from the same injuries.

The plaintiff argued the statutory scheme should not apply to intentional misconduct such as assaults and sexual assaults.

The court held that the statutory language broadly captures injuries or diseases arising out of service and reflects Parliament’s intent to prevent double recovery.

Accordingly, the action was stayed pending a final determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement to a pension by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

Two competing applications concerned whether a municipal site alteration by-law regulating the dumping of fill applied to an aerodrome.

The municipality sought declarations that its by-law requiring a permit and environmental safeguards for fill operations applied to the airport’s grading activities, while the airport operator argued that such regulation intruded on exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

Applying the constitutional doctrines governing division of powers and interjurisdictional immunity, the court held that the by-law’s pith and substance concerned environmental protection and land use regulation, matters within provincial jurisdiction.

The by-law did not impair the protected core of federal aeronautics power because it regulated only the quality and management of fill, not the design or operation of runways or airport facilities.

The municipal application was granted and the airport operator’s application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking to vary a prior endorsement denying urgency, to set aside a costs award, and to obtain declarations relating to alleged misconduct by a respondent in a judicial review proceeding concerning an order under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier motion and found that the prior judge’s determination regarding urgency and the costs award were supported by the record and applicable law.

The applicant failed to establish any basis to vary the earlier endorsement or to set aside the costs award.

The court concluded the judicial review application was not urgent and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.