Danielle Meuleman

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of unprocessed waste ash deposited at a church property.

During a telephone conference call, the parties consented to a schedule for pre-hearing motions, document exchange, and peremptory hearing dates.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions formalizing the agreed-upon schedule.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to comply with a previous Tribunal order requiring full disclosure of relevant documents.

The Tribunal found that while the self-represented appellant failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain documents in his power or control, he did not show wilful disregard for the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss the appeals, but ordered that the Greenpath Parties and their witnesses are prohibited from relying on any documents at the hearing that were not disclosed by the date of the order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a clean-up plan for groundwater contamination.

During ongoing settlement discussions, Freightliner and the City of London requested party status, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted party status to both entities for their respective sites and extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow settlement discussions to continue.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a property.

At a preliminary hearing, the appellants sought a stay of the order pending the resolution of the appeals.

The Director consented to a stay of most items in the order, as there was no evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part and also granted participant status to the City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association for the purpose of a forthcoming motion to revoke the order against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following the revocation of a 2013 Director's Order and the dismissal of the related appeal proceeding.

Peel argued the Director's conduct was unreasonable due to delays in issuing a new 2015 Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the Baker standard and found that the Director's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The costs application was dismissed.

The Regional Municipality of Peel brought a motion to revoke a Director's Order regarding the removal of waste ash from a site, requesting the motion be heard prior to the main appeals.

The City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association sought participant status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted participant status to both entities and ordered that Peel's motion to revoke be heard prior to the hearing of the appeals, subject to a schedule for disclosure.

The appellant appealed an order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was discharging a contaminant.

After completing the required decommissioning work to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm, arguing the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appellant relied primarily on lay witnesses expressing concerns about noise, shadow flicker, aviation safety, and impacts on species at risk, supported by one expert whose evidence was found insufficient.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus under the Environmental Protection Act, as the evidence amounted only to expressions of concern and was contradicted by the respondents' extensive expert evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the approval holder's mid-hearing non-suit motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to establish a prima facie case, noting a lack of submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of such a motion in the public interest context of REA appeals.

The appeal was dismissed and the REA confirmed.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Director's order to decommission a bore hole, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant status and an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the resident of the property where the bore hole was located, finding she had a genuine interest and could make a relevant contribution.

The Tribunal also granted an adjournment of the preliminary hearing on consent of the parties, as the appellant was actively implementing the required work under the Ministry's supervision, which might render a full hearing unnecessary.

The appellant sought to appeal a provincial officer's order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was leaking natural gas.

The appellant failed to request a review of the order by the Director within the required seven-day period, and the Director subsequently refused a late request for review.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that its jurisdiction under the Environmental Protection Act is limited to appeals of Director's orders.

Since no Director's order was issued and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to extend the time for requesting a Director's review, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order confirming a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was leaking natural gas.

After the bore hole was successfully decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellants proposed to withdraw their appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals and dismissed the appeals in accordance with Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice which held that the Crown could not appeal a judicial stay of proceedings under the Provincial Offences Act, but rather had to proceed by way of certiorari.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Jewitt to find that a judicial stay is tantamount to a dismissal.

Therefore, the Crown has a right of appeal under section 116(1)(b) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was engaged in a blasting operation that sent fly-rock onto neighbouring private property, causing damage.

The appellant did not report the incident to the Ministry of the Environment and was charged with failing to report the discharge of a contaminant under s. 15(1) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant argued that reporting was only required if the discharge caused non-trivial harm to the natural environment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of 'adverse effect' includes property damage as an independent trigger for liability, regardless of whether the natural environment itself is harmed.