Environmental Law

National Steel Car Limited challenged Ontario's Feed-In Tariff (FIT) Programs, arguing that the increased electricity costs passed to consumers via the "Global Adjustment" constituted an unlawful, unconstitutional tax.

The applicant contended that the FIT Programs' stated environmental and energy purposes were a "falsehood" and their true aim was economic stimulus, making the levy a "colourable taxation" enacted by regulation rather than statute, violating sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the FIT Programs were not colourable taxation and served legitimate regulatory purposes related to Ontario's electricity system, including promoting renewable energy and economic development.

The court concluded that the levy was properly characterized as an intra vires regulatory charge.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a securities class action, appealed a motion judge's order that granted leave for one misrepresentation claim but denied leave for others under the Ontario Securities Act.

The primary issues on appeal concerned the motion judge's approach to determining "public correction" of alleged misrepresentations, particularly by assuming falsity and applying a narrow textual analysis without considering market context.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by not engaging in a reasoned consideration of evidence regarding how alleged public corrections would be understood in the secondary market.

The Court remitted the issues of leave for capital expense/scheduling and accounting/financial reporting misrepresentations back to the lower court for redetermination, while upholding the denial of leave for certain environmental misrepresentations due to chronology issues.

The Township of Amaranth sought declarations and a permanent injunction against Vidhya Ramdas for contravening its Site Alteration By-law and a Stop Work Order by performing unauthorized fill activities on her property.

Ramdas failed to file responding materials despite multiple adjournments and court orders.

The court found deliberate and continuing breaches of the by-law and the orders, granting the Township's application for declarations, a permanent injunction, remedial orders for property restoration, and costs.

The Gendrons moved for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Kawartha Lakes from selling their home, which was subject to a priority lien under the Environmental Protection Act.

The City opposed, arguing estoppel, res judicata, failure to meet the injunction test, and lack of an undertaking for damages.

The court granted the prohibitive injunction, finding serious issues to be tried regarding the lien's validity and amount, irreparable harm to the Gendrons and TD Bank, and the balance of convenience favoring the Gendrons.

The court also ordered priority for the underlying motions.

ATV Farms sought certiorari to quash search warrants and production orders, and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed, following a CFIA investigation into alleged mislabelling of produce.

The court found reasonable grounds for specific mislabelling offences related to US-grown turnips (Counts 1-4) but not for broader, unparticularized allegations (Count 5).

The Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading statements regarding a prior incident, which, once corrected, undermined the grounds for Count 5.

The court held that the broad search warrants and production orders could not be severed and were therefore unlawful, infringing ATV Farms's s. 8 Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her motion to set aside a settlement regarding property in Highland Falls, New York and finding respondents in contempt.

The motion judge had granted the respondents' cross-motion for relief permitting implementation of the settlement terms.

The appellant raised four main grounds of appeal: (1) the motion judge erred in requiring leave to bring the motion; (2) the motion judge erred in rejecting her argument that the Final Order should be set aside due to environmental dumping issues; (3) the motion judge erred in approving a Deed Transfer that created an easement not contemplated by the Final Order; and (4) the motion judge erred in approving a Conservation Easement that was substantially more restrictive than agreed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the motion judge's decision.

The applicants sought judicial review of the City of Guelph's decision to replace a one-lane heritage bridge with a two-lane bridge on Niska Road, alleging contravention of section 24 of the Planning Act and non-conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.

The application also alleged bad faith.

The court, applying a reasonableness standard of review, dismissed the application, finding that the City's interpretation and application of its policies were not unreasonable and that the process was carried out according to the rule of law.

The defendant was charged with fifty-six counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying Heritage trees without a permit under the Town of Ancaster By-Law No. 2000-118.

The charges arose from tree cuttings on the Golf Links property in Hamilton between July 20 and August 10, 2014.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict and a Charter delay challenge, both of which were denied.

The court found that the prosecution established a prima facie case and that the matter proceeded well within the eighteen-month threshold established by R. v. Jordan for Provincial Offences Act matters.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the defendant guilty on all fifty-six counts.

The court rejected the defendant's defenses of mistake of fact, due diligence, and officially induced error, finding that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether a permit was required before cutting the trees.

Indigenous peoples from Ecuador obtained a US$9.5 billion judgment against Chevron Corporation for environmental devastation caused by oil exploration.

After failing to enforce the judgment in the United States due to findings of fraud by the plaintiffs' counsel, they sought to enforce it in Ontario against Chevron Canada, a seventh-level subsidiary.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding that Chevron Canada's shares and assets were not exigible under the Execution Act and that the corporate veil should not be pierced.

The appellants appealed, arguing both that the Execution Act permitted seizure of Chevron Canada's assets and that the corporate veil should be pierced in the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award, recognizing the litigation as public interest litigation.

The defendants were charged with five counts of importing engines without evidence of conformity as required by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Crown alleged importation of seven small spark-ignition engines and five diesel engines mounted in tractors.

The court found that while the Crown proved the importation of tractors and that the engines were of a prescribed class, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all engines had a model year of 2006 or later (for tractors) or 2005 or later (for small engines), which was an essential element of the offence.

The court convicted on one count relating to a tractor engine but acquitted on the remaining counts.

Homeowners sought to build a residence on property partially located on a floodplain designated as hazardous land under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority denied the application.

The Mining and Lands Commissioner, conducting a de novo hearing, upheld the denial based on safety concerns and the need to maintain the natural floodway.

The Divisional Court reversed, applying a correctness standard and finding the regulation did not presumptively prohibit development.

The Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court, holding that the reasonableness standard applied to the commissioner's interpretation of the regulation and that the commissioner's decision was reasonable.

The Regional Municipality of York, City of Vaughan, and York Regional Rapid Transit Corporation brought a Rule 21 motion to stay the plaintiff's action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that all claims constituted "injurious affection" under the Expropriations Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

The plaintiff conceded some claims (reduction in market value, business losses, quiet use and enjoyment during construction) were for injurious affection.

However, the plaintiff contended that claims for physical damage to its building and walkways, claims against Bell Canada and Robert B. Somerville Company Limited, and claims for ongoing vibrations were outside the OMB's jurisdiction.

The court found that while the work by Bell Canada and Somerville was under statutory authority, the alleged physical damage was not proven to be an inevitable consequence of the authorized work, a key requirement for injurious affection.

Consequently, the court stayed the conceded claims but allowed the claims for physical damage, those against Bell Canada and Somerville, and claims for ongoing vibrations to proceed in the Superior Court.

Two cottage associations, Trout Lake Campers’ Association and The Surprise Lake Campers’ Association, sought leave to intervene in an application by Rock Solid Holdings Inc. for a declaration regarding zoning for a gravel pit.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding that while the associations had an interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected, their interests were adequately represented by the Lakehead Rural Planning Board, and their intervention would unduly delay the main application.

The court emphasized the narrow scope of the main application, which concerned only the zoning bylaw and historical use.

The plaintiff claimed her water well was contaminated by municipal sewage waste (biosolids) applied to her neighbor's farmland, alleging nuisance and negligence.

The defendant brought a third-party claim against the farm lessee and the biosolids applicator.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that she failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the biosolids application caused the well contamination.

Crucially, no E. coli., the primary indicator of sewage contamination, was detected in any water samples, despite the presence of other bacteria commonly found in the natural environment.

The court also dismissed the third-party action.

The applicants brought a motion under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence seized during environmental protection inspections and a search warrant executed by officers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency.

The applicants were charged with importing tractors and small engines without proof of conformity to Canadian emission standards.

The court found that the December 2009 seizure was unreasonable due to an improperly issued Environmental Protection Compliance Order, the June 2010 seizure was unreasonable as it relied on the prior unlawful seizure, and the September 2010 computer search was unreasonable as the Information to Obtain lacked any grounds to believe relevant documents would be found in a computer.

The court excluded the computer evidence but admitted the seized equipment and observations thereof.

A private information was brought against the defendant for injuring or destroying a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owner, contrary to section 10(3) of the Forestry Act of Ontario.

The defendant, a property owner, had instructed a tree removal company to cut down a Norway maple tree located on the property line between his property and the plaintiff's property.

The defendant had obtained a Confirmation of Exemption from the City of Toronto identifying the tree as imminently hazardous and requiring its removal.

The defendant argued that no conflict existed between the provincial Forestry Act and the City of Toronto's municipal code regarding hazardous trees, and that he was entitled to remove the tree based on the city's determination.

The court found that the defendant had failed to obtain the consent of the co-owners before removal, despite the exemption document explicitly stating that the applicant must resolve ownership issues.

The defendant was convicted of the offence.

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.

The defendant was charged with failing to surrender evidence of insurance for an off-road vehicle within seventy-two hours of a peace officer's request, contrary to section 15(4) of the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

The defendant claimed he was an occupier of Crown land under a 21-day free use permit and therefore exempt from the requirement.

He also raised Charter issues regarding unlawful detention, breach of the right to remain silent, and unlawful search.

The court found that the defendant was not a legal occupier of the Crown land, that his arrest was lawful, and that while a search of his saddle-bag breached his Charter rights, no evidence was seized.

The court found the defendant guilty of the included offence under section 15(3) of the Off-Road Vehicle Act as the element of ownership could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.