David N. Germain

The Municipality of East Ferris issued an order under the Environmental Protection Act requiring the Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board to pay costs for cleaning up a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The School Board appealed, arguing it was not the legal successor to the 1957 school board that owned the property when the school was built.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that under the 1968 Separate Schools Act, the 1969 school board took over the functions, responsibilities, and liabilities of the 1957 board, making it the legal successor for the purposes of section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties appealed a Municipal Order and a Director's Order regarding the clean-up of a heating oil spill at a former school site.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included a remediation action plan and an amendment to the Director's Order regarding sampling requirements.

The Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeals.

The Tribunal held pre-hearing conferences regarding consolidated appeals related to a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The appeals involve a municipal order for clean-up costs and a Director's Order requiring remediation work.

The parties engaged in mediation and resolved most issues.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a one-day hearing to address the single remaining issue in the Director's Order appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding two consolidated appeals related to a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The first appeal concerned a municipal order directing the school board to pay cleanup costs, while the second concerned a Director's order issued to both the municipality and the school board.

The Tribunal established a procedural schedule for the first phase of the municipal order appeal and directed the parties to provide an update on their mediation efforts regarding the Director's order.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a new lot containing an existing two-storey single dwelling and retain the remnant parcel as an Agricultural Purposes Only lot.

The appellant argued that the dwelling was a residence surplus to a farming operation resulting from a farm consolidation and that the timing requirements for severance should be applied flexibly.

The Hearing Officers found that the new dwelling, built decades after the original dwelling was demolished and in a different location, was not equivalent to the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the clear and unambiguous 10-year occupation and 2-year application timing rules in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Regional Official Plan were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed.

The Town of Grand Valley sought declarations that Paul Kenneth Walker's trucking business contravened its zoning by-laws and a statutory injunction to prohibit its operation.

Walker and Jones argued the business conformed with the former by-law and raised defenses of laches and promissory estoppel.

The court found triable issues regarding conformity with the former by-law and the applicability of equitable doctrines, dismissing the Town's application for an injunction and directing a trial on these issues.

The municipality issued an order directing the school board to pay costs related to the clean-up of a heating oil spill from underground storage tanks.

The school board appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the proceeding because the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change indicated it would soon issue a Director's order against both parties regarding the same spill.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the parties to determine whether they would appeal the anticipated Director's order and potentially consolidate the proceedings.

The appellant school board appealed a municipal order requiring it to pay over $600,000 for the clean-up of a heating oil spill from underground storage tanks at a former school site.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties jointly requested that the hearing be conducted in two phases: the first to determine if the school board was the owner or person in control of the oil at the time of the spill, and the second to assess the reasonableness and purpose of the costs incurred by the municipality.

The Tribunal granted the request to phase the hearing and adjourned the pre-hearing conference to allow the school board time to review technical reports and receive particulars.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing the appeal of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NCVA) against a Divisional Court decision.

The NCVA sought costs of $77,419.86 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and Divisional Court proceedings.

The court awarded reduced costs, finding the amounts sought for the leave to appeal motion and appeal hearing to be excessive relative to the Divisional Court costs.

The Gilmors were ordered to pay the NCVA $44,674.25 all-inclusive in total costs.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Deputy Mining and Lands Commissioner denying them permission to build a home on their land due to flood control concerns raised by the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by presuming a general legislative prohibition on development in floodplains and by elevating safety to a stand-alone head of jurisdiction.

The Court held that the proposed development would have no impact on flood control and directed the approval of the development without conditions.

The Town brought an application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to enjoin the appellant from contravening its zoning and site alteration by-laws, alleging the appellant operated an illegal waste disposal business.

The appellant claimed the properties were used for a legal non-conforming peat moss and triple mix business.

The application judge granted the injunction based on affidavit evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by resolving conflicting material facts and credibility issues solely on a written record and by failing to make factual findings to support the site alteration injunction.

The appeal was allowed and a trial of the issues was directed.

The applicant Ministry sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the expansion of the urban boundary of the Town of Fort Erie.

The Board had found that a transitional regulation under the Places to Grow Act 2005 applied because a valid 'request' was made prior to June 16, 2006, even though supporting documentation was submitted later.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of 'request' or its factual findings.