Dennis Mahony

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

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

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

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

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval granted to the approval holder for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered unopposed requests for participant and presenter status from various individuals and organizations.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a conservation authority and a local resident, and presenter status to a naturalist group and a citizens' coalition.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 9-turbine wind facility on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, shadow flicker, and safety risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, including groundwater and bird species at risk.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus of proving the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act, relying on the expert evidence provided by the approval holder.

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

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

One appellant subsequently proposed to withdraw its appeal with the consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed that appeal.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to an environmental coalition in the remaining appeal and issued procedural directions for the hearing.

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated a resolution regarding the Margach Waste Disposal Site and submitted a Draft Interim Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Interim Order on consent, which included a stay of the financial assurance requirements and an extension of deadlines for implementing closure plan requirements, finding that the statutory bars to a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated an interim agreement regarding the third order (the Dryden Order), which included a stay of the requirement to provide financial assurance pending the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal approved the interim agreement and granted the stay on consent, noting that the statutory bars to a stay did not apply and that the appellants' commitments addressed the Director's concerns.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to maintain and monitor a closed landfill site after the current owner became insolvent.

The parties jointly proposed a Draft Interim Order to stay the financial assurance requirements and amend the timing of other work items pending the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal found that the statutory bars to a stay under section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not apply and approved the Draft Interim Order on consent, adjourning the matter to allow for settlement negotiations.