Environmental Law

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a Municipal Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines following a spill at a hazardous waste facility.

Both the appellants and the respondent filed motions shortly before the scheduled merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted relief from its rules regarding motion timelines and directed that both motions be heard on the first day of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal also granted a one-day adjournment of the merit hearing for confidential personal reasons and issued directions regarding the hearing plan and joint book of documents.

The appellant appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to permit an 88-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant scaled back the proposed development to 35 residential units and three detached dwellings, and revised the instruments to the satisfaction of the appellant and added party.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal under the Planning Act regarding a zoning by-law amendment with a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding that consolidation would provide efficiencies as the matters involve the same property, common issues, and the same witnesses.

A 13-day merit hearing was scheduled.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Ontari Holdings Ltd. concerning a proposed business park development.

The appellant withdrew its appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, intending to file a new application under the amended Act.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals for the remaining Subdivision Appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal released the previously scheduled 15-day hearing dates for February 2025 and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2025 to await the outcome of the new application.

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

The parties reported ongoing private settlement discussions.

The Tribunal set a deadline of January 22, 2025, for a status update.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the disposal of leachate and the submission of a written abatement plan at a property in the Township of St. Clair.

During a telephone conference call, the parties agreed to modify the compliance date for one item of the Order, and the appellant subsequently withdrew its request for a stay of another item.

The Tribunal scheduled a Case Management Conference and ordered the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Title of Proceedings of a decision issued on October 15, 2024.

The amendment replaced the Title of Proceedings to accurately reflect the parties and objectors involved in the application for a Class 'A' License under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Casper Sleep Inc. against an Administrative Penalty Order issued by the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority for alleged contraventions of the Blue Box regulation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in off-line discussions to narrow the issues or explore settlement, and to provide a status update by December 13, 2024, without setting a further hearing date.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an excavator from a flood plain and related environmental remediation.

Following several case management conferences, the excavator was successfully extracted and all requirements of the Director's Order were satisfied.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal found it in the public interest to dismiss the proceeding and close the file.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ministry advised that the Order had been fulfilled.

The appellant requested additional time to review newly disclosed documents and determine how to proceed with the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter held in abeyance until the appellant requests a subsequent conference or until April 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the remediation of illegal demolition waste dumped on an unlicensed site.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned its appeal and the parties presented a proposed settlement in the form of a new Director's Order with a detailed remediation work programme.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the original Director's Order revoked against the appellant and directed the issuance of the new Director's Order as set out in the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to grant a consent to sever a property into two lots, each to be serviced by an advanced treatment septic system.

The City argued that its Hydrogeological Guidelines prohibited the use of advanced treatment systems to justify undersized lots due to concerns over long-term performance and enforcement.

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines did not form part of the Official Plan and were merely an interpretive tool.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that advanced treatment systems are reliable and that adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist, such as consent agreements registered on title.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions, including a monitoring agreement and financial securities.

The applicant sought a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act to operate a quarry in Haldimand County.

Several area residents objected to the application, raising concerns about blasting, dust, noise, groundwater impacts, and traffic.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and several objectors reached a settlement, resulting in revised site plan drawings that included enhanced groundwater monitoring and complaint response protocols.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the official plan, and having appropriate regard for the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to the revised site plan conditions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike out the defendants' Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, or specific parts thereof, alleging contravention of Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by pleading evidence (especially technical opinion evidence), improper references to legal counsel, and argument.

The defendants argued their pleading contained material facts relevant to their defence and limitations.

The court found that many paragraphs contained opinion evidence, irrelevant references to legal counsel, or argument, and ordered specific paragraphs and sentences struck out with leave to amend, but declined to strike the entire pleading.

The Crown prosecuted Hernder Farms Limited and its director Gottfried Hernder under the Ontario Water Resources Act for operating an unapproved sewage system and discharging raw sewage into a tributary of Richardson's Creek.

The defendants installed a holding tank and leaching bed system without obtaining required approval from the Ministry of the Environment.

In June 2008, a crack in the pipe caused effluent to percolate to the ground surface and flow into the watercourse, causing visible discoloration.

The court found the defendants guilty of all charges, rejecting the defence arguments that approval had been granted, that the discharge was de minimus, and that the defendant exercised due diligence in operating the system.

Appeal from convictions under section 28(16) of the Conservation Authorities Act for undertaking development without authorization from the Grand River Conservation Authority on property in the Township of North Dumfries.

The appellants were convicted of creating a laneway and berm through protected wetland without obtaining the required permit.

The appellants challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, the conservation authority's jurisdiction over private property, and alleged incompetence of trial counsel.

The appellate court upheld the convictions and sentences, finding the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, the jurisdiction issues were properly addressed, and there was no merit to allegations of counsel incompetence or conflict.

The Halton Region Conservation Authority appealed the sentencing decision imposed on the respondents for contravening the Conservation Authorities Act by undertaking unauthorized development in a designated erosion hazard zone.

The respondents had applied for permission to construct a lakeside addition to their property in Burlington, which was denied.

Despite the denial and subsequent stop work orders, they proceeded with construction and completed the addition.

The trial judge imposed fines of $5,000 each and a probation order requiring seawall reconstruction, but did not order removal of the unauthorized structure.

The appellate court found the sentence demonstrably unfit and allowed the appeal, setting aside the fines and imposing an order for removal of the lakeside addition at the respondents' expense.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: failing to remit revenues from fishing licence sales over a two-year period (approximately $50,931.92) contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, and unlawfully possessing fish in excess of the daily possession limit contrary to the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007.

The defendant was a 50-year-old Canadian citizen operating a fishing licence sales business who had recently undergone personal bankruptcy and made partial restitution of approximately $30,000 out of $98,000 owed.

The court imposed a 30-day intermittent sentence (served on weekends), a $300 fine for the possession offence, and two years of probation, balancing denunciation and general deterrence against mitigating factors including the defendant's economic circumstances, guilty plea, and restitution efforts.

Three defendants appealed their convictions and sentences for breaching the County of Elgin Woodlands Conservation Bylaw 05-03 by cutting down trees in a right of way without complying with the bylaw's provisions.

The County of Elgin cross-appealed seeking increased sentences and lifting of a stay on one count.

The appellate court found that the Kienapple principle against multiple convictions did not apply, as the seven counts contained sufficient distinct elements.

The court set aside findings of guilt on two counts relating to signage and notice requirements, finding the bylaw language ambiguous as applied to the defendants.

The court increased the fines imposed, finding the original sentences inadequate to satisfy principles of general and specific deterrence in regulatory offences.