Environmental Law

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit.

The permit allowed the conversion of an accessory building into an on-farm diversified use.

The appellants sought modifications to the final site plan conditions.

As the Commission indicated it would not participate in drafting the procedural order, the Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming one-day video hearing.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer an aggregate licence from the objector (the current licensee) to the applicant (the landowner) after the extraction agreement between them expired and the pit sat dormant for over 20 years.

The objector requested a hearing, arguing the transfer should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay $750,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licence.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has an economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to attach a condition requiring financial compensation to a licence transfer.

The Tribunal held that resolving financial disputes between private parties is not necessary or incidental to its mandate of managing aggregate resources.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer without conditions.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order, an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and a Notice of Suspension of the Amended ECA regarding its facility in Sarnia.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant indicated its intention to withdraw all appeals except for one item in the Amended ECA relating to the cessation of accepting and storing benzene.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings closed and discontinued for the withdrawn appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining issue.

The appellant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment to retroactively legalize unauthorized development on a waterfront property, including additions to a seasonal cottage and various decks within the prescribed 30-metre shoreline setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested exceptions failed to conform with the Township Official Plan's strict shoreline setback policies designed to protect the ecological and heritage features of the Rideau Canal waterway.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's ecological evidence due to factual misapprehensions and accepted the municipality's evidence that the unauthorized development likely had an unacceptable negative impact on the environment and Species at Risk habitat.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer two aggregate licences from the appellant to the respondent landowner after their extraction agreement expired.

The appellant objected, seeking $518,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licences, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to direct financial compensation as a condition of a licence transfer under s. 18(8) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal held that resolving contractual disputes and claims for economic loss between a landowner and a licence holder is outside its mandate.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer of the licences to the respondent.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Chiefs of Ontario brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it in the public interest to adjudicate the issues with fulsome evidence, including from the Chiefs of Ontario, and that the potential prejudice to First Nations communities outweighed any perceived prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming hearing.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to an adjacent industrial facility, arguing the approval failed to consider noise and vibration impacts on their proposed residential development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Tribunal found that the Director's decision was reasonable, as it followed Ministry guidelines and the proposed residential development was a hypothetical scenario pending zoning approval.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish that the Amended ECA could result in significant environmental harm, as the facility's emissions met established standards and the ECA included conditions for future reassessment if zoning changes occurred.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on July 2, 2025, regarding an application by V.B. Sand & Gravel Ltd. to amend the Zoning By-law and for an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a proposed extraction operation in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to resolve inadequacies in existing sewage works on a property with a history of industrial uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that their experts were engaged in productive discussions and requested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence in September 2025, which will be vacated if mediation is successful, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed a cost recovery order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks following an explosion and fire at a hazardous waste processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement reducing the payable amount from $133,097.14 to $100,000, removing the individual directors from the order, and requiring a site closure plan.

The City of St. Catharines sought Party status but was granted Participant status to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it ensured recovery of reasonable costs and provided for the prompt closure and remediation of the site.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

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 Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a notice of refusal to approve an application for relief from regulatory requirements for drinking water sampling under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing but requested that hearing dates be set.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that granted an applicant's request to amend a condition of a provisional consent for a land severance.

The condition related to demonstrating adequate water quality for the proposed lots.

The applicant sought to amend the condition to allow for a minor sodium aesthetic exceedance that would be treated with an in-home reverse osmosis system.

The City argued the exceedance violated its guidelines and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the guidelines were non-statutory interpretive tools, the health parameters were met, and the amendment conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ontario Graphite Ltd. against Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The orders relate to contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

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 applicant appealed the conditions imposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) on a development permit for an agri-tourism use, specifically an on-farm accommodation and bistro.

The NEC did not participate in the hearing, and another appellant withdrew.

The Hearing Officer accepted the applicant's expert planning evidence that the original conditions were inappropriate, as they attached to the user rather than the use and duplicated municipal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal approved the applicant's Revised Conditions, finding them to represent good planning and the public interest, and confirmed the NEC's decision to issue the permit subject to these new conditions.

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.

The Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) moved to stay an application brought by the Regional Municipality of Halton and its constituent municipalities (Halton) concerning the applicability of provincial and municipal laws to CNR's proposed intermodal rail hub in Milton.

Halton's application sought declarations on constitutional division of powers issues, arguing that provincial and local laws of general application should apply to the federal undertaking.

CNR contended the application was premature and interfered with an ongoing federal environmental assessment process.

The court granted CNR's motion to stay Halton's application, finding that while the constitutional issues were not hypothetical, the federal environmental review panel was mandated to consider local concerns and impacts, and allowing the application to proceed would be an unwarranted intrusion into the federal process and an inefficient use of judicial resources.

The stay is temporary, pending the completion of the federal environmental assessment and the Minister's decision.

The Crown prosecuted four defendants for violations of the Nutrient Management Act and Ontario Water Resources Act relating to a large hog finishing operation near Newburgh, Ontario.

The defendants failed to comply with specific items in a Director's Order, including providing written confirmation that manure production had ceased and submitting engineering assessments and site characterization studies.

The court found the defendants guilty on five counts, rejecting their defences of due diligence, reasonable mistake of fact, and officially induced error.

The court found that the defendants' belief that filing a Nutrient Management Strategy application obviated their need to comply with the Director's Order was unreasonable and contrary to law.

A conditional stay was entered on one count due to duplication of charges.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their former solicitors (Hicks Defendants) for professional negligence, alleging that the solicitors missed a limitation period for an action against previous solicitors (Arnone Defendants) concerning the purchase of contaminated land.

The Hicks Defendants admitted liability for the missed limitation period, and the trial proceeded solely to assess the plaintiffs' damages.

The court awarded damages for environmental remediation costs and a nominal amount for the inconvenience of managing the remediation, totaling $57,712.31.

However, claims for loss of property value, real estate commission on a failed sale, roof replacement costs, excess mortgage interest, and mental distress were dismissed due to lack of expert evidence, legal prohibitions (for commission), or being deemed not reasonably foreseeable consequences of the negligence.