Dennis O’Leary

The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.

The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.

The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact from a 1990 spill on his property.

The Director subsequently revoked the order after receiving evidence that a third party had tampered with a neighbouring well by adding fuel oil, invalidating the samples, and that there was no credible evidence linking the 1990 spill to the current contamination.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the appeal.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order issued under the Environmental Protection Act for the assessment and remediation of a petroleum spill.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the request, vacating the April 2016 hearing dates and adjourning the matter to September 2016.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a remediation order.

The Director sought the adjournment because new hydrogeological reports cast doubt on the assumption that a spill on the appellant's property caused the contamination on a neighbouring property.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing given the new scientific evidence.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order to retain a consultant for petroleum spill remediation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a teleconference for November 9, 2015, with reasons to follow.

The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the retention of a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impacts on groundwater from a 1990 spill.

Following a preliminary hearing to establish the issues list, several added parties requested the inclusion of new issues.

The Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of the proposed issues, finding no reason to depart from its previous order, but amended one issue regarding the supplier of lake-based water.

The Tribunal also clarified that jurisdictional arguments regarding the addition of another party to the Order were not precluded.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact on groundwater from a 1990 fuel oil spill on his cottage property.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order clarifying the scope of the appeal and organizing the issues to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal identified seven main issues within the scope of the appeal and excluded issues related to remedy or expanding the Director's Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial measures for groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following a settlement agreement where Nortel agreed to pay $300,000 to the new property owner (Taggart) and Taggart agreed to a new Director's Order requiring remediation backed by financial assurance, the Director proposed to revoke the original order.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.