Environmental Law

The plaintiff brought a claim for damages against the municipalities for failure to maintain a municipal drain, resulting in flooding of his farm.

The municipalities moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred due to lack of proper notice under sections 79(2) and 111 of the Drainage Act.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motions for summary judgment regarding notice, finding that the notices provided were adequate despite not being in a prescribed form.

However, the Referee limited the plaintiff's damages to the period after he acquired legal title to the property on September 24, 2013, dismissing claims for damages prior to that date.

The Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation (RVCF) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal seeking the extension of a municipal drain through its property, which is a Provincially Significant Wetland acquired through the federal Ecological Gifts Program.

The RVCF argued that the Drainage Act could not unilaterally direct the alteration of the property due to a Landholding Agreement and federal tax implications regarding a change in use.

The Drainage Referee dismissed the motion, finding that the potential tax consequences under the Income Tax Act did not trigger federal paramountcy or interjurisdictional immunity, and that the Drainage Act is an applicable provincial law that must be complied with.

The Drainage Referee issued procedural directions following a hearing regarding the Hobbs Municipal Drain Outlet Extension.

The Referee addressed a withdrawn proposal to remove the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority as a party and directed the Rideau Valley Conservation Foundation to bring a formal motion regarding its challenge to the Referee's jurisdiction.

The Referee also provided directions to various unrepresented and added parties regarding the filing of claims for damages or assessments for lack of outlet under the Drainage Act, urging them to retain drainage engineers and legal counsel.

At a procedural pre-hearing conference, the Acting Drainage Referee addressed a jurisdictional motion by the respondent municipality and a motion to extend time by the applicants.

The Referee determined that the Court of the Drainage Referee has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal or judicial review of a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal under sections 48 and 54 of the Drainage Act.

Consequently, portions of the applicants' affidavit relating solely to the Tribunal proceedings were deemed irrelevant and will be disregarded.

The Referee also granted the applicants' motion to extend the time to commence the application under section 113 of the Drainage Act, finding no prejudice to the municipality.

The appellant appealed the validity of a drainage petition signed by the Road Superintendent under Section 4(1)(c) of the Drainage Act, arguing the true purpose was to provide drainage for a subdivision rather than the road.

The Drainage Referee found that there was a genuine need for proper drainage of the roads and ditches to prevent deterioration and address safety concerns.

The Referee held that Section 4(1)(c) should be interpreted liberally, as road authorities have special drainage problems and are accountable to the public.

The appeal was dismissed and the petition was confirmed as valid.

The appellants appealed to the Ontario Drainage Referee to quash a by-law adopting a drainage report, arguing the underlying petition was invalid.

The petition was signed by a single landowner whose property constituted the only area requiring drainage, though it was a minority of the total watershed.

The Referee dismissed the appeal, accepting the drainage engineer's professional opinion that the upstream and downstream lands did not require drainage due to topography and land use.

The Referee held that the petition met the requirements of the Drainage Act because the single signatory owned at least 60 percent of the hectarage in the specific area requiring drainage.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to a complaint that his company was pumping water in contravention of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Ministry withheld the complainant's name under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the non-disclosure violated his section 7 Charter rights to know his accuser.

The Adjudicator upheld the Ministry's decision, finding that the complainant's name was personal information compiled as part of a law enforcement investigation, and its disclosure would be an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Adjudicator also held that the right to disclosure under section 7 of the Charter does not apply to freedom of information requests, and that informer privilege protects the complainant's identity.

A requester sought access to site evaluation reports and Certificates of Approval for various sites from the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry decided to disclose the records, but a third-party engineering company appealed, arguing the records contained trade secrets and technical information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would prejudice its competitive position under section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that while the records contained technical information supplied in confidence, the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, noting that much of the information was already publicly available or routinely disclosed.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Environment and Energy's decision to deny access to a document entitled 'Operations Division - Delivery Strategy'.

The Ministry claimed the record was exempt under the law enforcement exemption in section 14(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Adjudicator found that the record contained detailed methodologies for investigators and enforcement staff, the disclosure of which would reveal investigative techniques and hinder the Ministry's ability to enforce environmental laws.

The Adjudicator also found that the public interest override in section 23 does not apply to section 14(1)(c).

The Ministry's decision to deny access was upheld.

The City of Toronto received a request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for records relating to the environmental contamination of a former gasoline service station.

The City decided to disclose the records.

An affected organization appealed, arguing the records were exempt under sections 10(1)(a) and (b) as third party information supplied in confidence.

The Assistant Commissioner found that while some records contained technical or commercial information, none were supplied in confidence with a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the City was ordered to disclose the records.

The appellant submitted a freedom of information request to the Ministry of the Environment for records relating to environmental concerns at a specific property.

The Ministry disclosed approximately 300 pages but withheld four pages under section 19 of the Act, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The appellant appealed, alleging that the Ministry failed to conduct an adequate search and had tampered with the records.

The adjudicator found the Ministry's search was reasonable and dismissed that portion of the appeal.

Regarding the withheld records, the adjudicator upheld the section 19 exemption for two records containing legal advice and communications for litigation, but ordered the disclosure of the remaining two records, finding them to be purely informational.

The requester appealed a fee estimate and partial fee waiver by the Regional Municipality of York regarding a request for records relating to the environmental assessment of septic systems.

The Municipality had reduced the fee from $2720 to $675 and waived 50%, resulting in a fee of $337.50.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the fee estimate as being in accordance with the Act and Regulations.

The Inquiry Officer also dismissed the request for a further fee waiver, finding that the Municipality had already absorbed much of the cost and a further waiver would shift an unreasonable burden to the Municipality.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Township of Egremont to deny access to records relating to a tire dump on a neighbouring property.

The Township claimed exemptions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for solicitor-client privilege, relations with other governments, and invasion of privacy.

The Inquiry Officer upheld the solicitor-client privilege exemption for certain records and the invasion of privacy exemption for one record and personal identifiers in others.

The Inquiry Officer found no compelling public interest to override the exemptions and ordered the disclosure of the remaining non-exempt records and severed portions.

The appellant requested access to an environmental assessment report regarding a proposed development site from the City of Toronto.

The City and the current property owner opposed disclosure, claiming the third party information exemption under section 10(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that while the record contained technical information supplied in confidence, the parties resisting disclosure failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of harm resulting from disclosure.

The City was ordered to disclose the record.

A requester sought access to a company's application for a Certificate of Approval to operate a soil recycling facility and the related Ministry file.

The Ministry decided to grant full access to the records.

The company appealed the decision, arguing the records contained exempt third party information under sections 17(1)(a) and (c) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Inquiry Officer found that the company failed to establish a reasonable expectation of harm from disclosure, as required by the third part of the exemption test.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the records was upheld.

The appellant, a host township for a proposed landfill site, requested access to records relating to the County's waste management master plan and landfill site search.

The County issued a fee estimate of $8,250 and denied the appellant's request for a fee waiver.

On appeal, the Inquiry Officer found that the County failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the search and preparation time claimed in the fee estimate.

Furthermore, the Inquiry Officer ordered a full fee waiver, finding that dissemination of the records would benefit public health and safety regarding the proposed landfill, and that a waiver was fair and equitable in the circumstances.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy received a freedom of information request for an agreement regarding soil contamination clean up.

The Ministry decided to release the agreement, and the affected third party company appealed.

The Assistant Commissioner found that the agreement was negotiated, not 'supplied' by the company, and that its confidentiality expired upon Lieutenant Governor approval.

The company's claims of settlement privilege and potential harm in civil litigation did not satisfy the requirements for exemption under section 17(1) or section 14(1)(f) of the Act.

The Ministry's decision to disclose the agreement was upheld.

The appellant requested access to reports regarding refillable soft drink containers submitted to the Ministry of the Environment.

The Ministry denied access to the monthly reports under the third-party information exemption in section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Commissioner found that while the sales information was supplied in confidence, the ratio information was not, as the Ministry had previously stated that ratio information might be made public.

The Commissioner ordered the disclosure of the ratio reports and the audit reports with the sales information severed.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to portions of records relating to the discharge of NDMA from the Elmira water treatment plant.

The Ministry claimed exemptions under sections 13(1) and 18(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Assistant Commissioner found that certain severances containing advice and draft orders were properly exempt under section 13(1).

However, other severances containing statements of apparent solutions and action plans did not qualify as advice or recommendations, nor did they constitute proposed plans, policies, or projects under section 18(1)(g).

The Ministry was ordered to disclose the non-exempt severances to the requester.

The requester appealed the Ministry of the Environment's decision to deny access to environmental reports concerning PCB levels at a specific industrial site.

The Ministry and the affected third party claimed the records were exempt under section 17 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act as scientific or technical information supplied in confidence.

The Commissioner found that while the records contained scientific and technical information, the third party and the Ministry failed to prove the information was supplied in confidence, either implicitly or explicitly.

The Commissioner ordered the release of the records in full.