Environmental Law

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for the reconstruction of Olde Baseline Road.

The parties indicated they were actively engaged in settlement discussions and anticipated a resolution in the near term.

The Tribunal encouraged the continued discussions and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for late March 2022, directing the parties to report on the status of their settlement efforts prior to the next appearance.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to permit the relocation of a wetland, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed requests for Party and Participant status.

Environmental Defence was granted Party status over the appellant's request for deferral, as it demonstrated a genuine interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

Twenty-two individuals were granted Participant status without opposition.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and address the anticipated consolidation with a forthcoming draft plan of subdivision appeal.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County's approval of consent applications to create nine residential lots near a Provincially Significant Wetland.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the applicants to complete and submit a wetland evaluation study by July 15, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to determine if the matter would proceed to a contested hearing or settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an application for an aggregate extraction license on private lands.

The application was referred to the Tribunal due to objections from local residents.

The self-represented parties had not prepared a Draft Procedural Order or Issues List prior to the conference.

The Tribunal provided instructions on party obligations, adjusted party and participant statuses, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to prepare and potentially engage in discussions.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Tribunal applied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, which seek to protect lake capacity by limiting development.

The Tribunal concluded the variance was neither desirable for the appropriate development of the land nor minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was not authorized.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variance, finding that it did not meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal relied on expert planning evidence that the variance would result in inappropriate intensification contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which require a rezoning application and supporting environmental studies for additional dwellings in the waterfront zone.

Romandale Farms Ltd. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding an official plan amendment for the Angus Glen Block.

Romandale argued the hearing should be delayed until the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, potential permitting under the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing judicial review litigation concerning the proposed collector road network.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the necessity for approvals under other legislation is not a basis to adjourn a Planning Act hearing, and that an official plan amendment does not constitute an authorization to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against a conservation authority's refusal to grant permission for the construction of a new dwelling and holding tank.

The parties agreed to a timeline for the exchange of documents, including an updated Environmental Impact Study report.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing for May 30, 2022.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for the re-construction of Olde Baseline Road, the Regional Municipality of Peel requested and was granted Party status on consent.

The Hearing Office directed the parties to refine the issues list and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

In a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) issued to an aggregate pit operator, the Tribunal determined the final Issues List.

The appellants sought to include issues relating to aggregate washing, settlement ponds, and groundwater quality impacts from those processes.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider aggregate washing and related sewage works in a PTTW appeal, as those matters are governed by a separate Environmental Compliance Approval process under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Tribunal struck or amended the disputed issues to ensure they strictly related to the taking of water, rather than its subsequent treatment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for a special event tent.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions focused on noise mitigation measures but had not yet reached a final agreement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue their discussions, required the non-attending appellant to participate, and ordered the parties to provide a status report or notice of readiness for a further conference or hearing.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new accessory structure on the applicant's property.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated they were engaged in settlement discussions regarding alternative locations for the structure.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update by April 29, 2022, to advise whether a settlement had been reached or if a hearing on the merits would be required.

The appellant completed unauthorized site alterations, including regrading and tree removal, within a Key Natural Heritage Feature on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment refused the subsequent minor variance application.

On appeal, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances, subject to conditions including a comprehensive tree restoration plan and security deposit, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were approved.

R.W. Tomlinson Limited brought a motion for costs against Keep Napanee Great (KNG) following KNG's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval for a mobile concrete batching plant.

Tomlinson argued KNG's conduct was unreasonable and in bad faith, seeking over $32,000.

KNG, a self-represented community group, brought a counter-motion for $2,000 in costs, alleging Tomlinson's motion was an intimidation tactic.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed both motions, finding that KNG's procedural missteps as a self-represented litigant did not amount to clearly unreasonable or bad faith conduct warranting costs.

The Tribunal also found Tomlinson's motion, while unsuccessful, was not an abuse of process based on the information it had at the time.

The appellant municipality appealed a condition in its renewed municipal drinking water licence that imposed a new Total Chlorine Residual limit on media filter backwash effluent.

The appellant's existing system could not immediately comply with the new limit.

The parties reached a settlement to remove the limit from the current licence, with the appellant committing to make necessary system alterations before the 2026 licence renewal.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it satisfied statutory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and was in the public interest, as the delay posed no risk to drinking water and insignificant environmental impact.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and an aggregate licence referral, to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The municipality advised it had resolved its concerns and withdrew as a party.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 9, 2022, to finalize the issues list, and set a 13-day hearing on the merits commencing January 31, 2023.

The appellant, a commercial property owner, appealed the dismissal of its action under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant sought declaratory relief that the respondents were "persons having control of a pollutant" under section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act and were liable for contribution or indemnity regarding lead contamination on the property.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the statement of claim contained a "radical defect" by failing to allege facts necessary to support the claim, specifically failing to plead when the first discharge of lead occurred or that the respondents had control of the pollutant immediately before such discharge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a 1985 indemnity provided by the Province of Ontario to Great Lakes and Reed covered the costs of complying with a 2011 Director's Order requiring remedial work at an abandoned mercury waste disposal site near Dryden, Ontario.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment in favour of Weyerhaeuser and Resolute, finding both were entitled to indemnification.

The appellate court was divided.

The majority (Brown and Lauwers JJ.A.) held that the 1985 indemnity did cover the costs of complying with the Director's Order, but found that Resolute had no legal interest in the indemnity because Bowater had assigned the full benefit to Weyerhaeuser in 1998.

The majority remitted the issue of Weyerhaeuser's rights as assignee to the trial court.

Justice Laskin dissented, arguing the 1985 indemnity covered only third-party pollution claims, not first-party regulatory compliance costs.

The claimant sought a ruling that costs incurred in Superior Court proceedings, which were ultimately found to be without jurisdiction for assessment by a judge, should be included as part of the expropriation costs to be assessed by an assessment officer.

The respondent argued that these costs should not be awarded as the court lacked jurisdiction and the respondent was not at fault.

The court declined to make a determination on the Superior Court costs, instead referring the question of entitlement and quantum to the assessment officer conducting the expropriation costs assessment, noting that both parties shared the misapprehension of the court's jurisdiction.