Dirk VanderBent

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order Amendment requiring work at a Tailings Management Facility.

Prior to the hearing, the required work was completed by other named parties, and the Director proposed to revoke the Order against the appellant.

The Tribunal reviewed the proposed revocation under Rule 202, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order against the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.

The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.

The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.

The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.

The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and execution of a demolition waste source separation program for an ongoing mill demolition.

Following a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued procedural directions scheduling mediation, the exchange of disclosure and witness statements, and dates for the main hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions for scheduling a motion to stay the Director's Order.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the removal of waste and installation of spill containment structures at a waste transfer site.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement and requested the revocation of the Order.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the waste removal requirements and was working towards compliance with the spill containment requirements under the supervision of the local Ministry office.

The Tribunal concluded that revoking the Order was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Work Order and an Implementation Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding the deposit of contaminated soil.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the installation of a fill cap.

Upon confirmation that the fill cap was installed, the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to amend the Work Order by revoking Work Item No. 1 and to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be in the public interest, amended the Work Order, and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot mix asphalt plant and aggregate depot.

The applicant raised concerns regarding noise, air emissions, and the facility's location, but failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the Ministry's engineers.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding the applicant did not meet the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The appellants appealed a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change order requiring them to assess and remediate contaminated soil deposited at a former rail line property.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellants agreed to implement a Risk Management Plan, including capping the soil and ongoing monitoring.

The parties requested provisional approval of the settlement and the withdrawal of one work item from the original order.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, pending confirmation of the fill cap installation.

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.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter status to the Township of Norwich on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also issued detailed procedural directions for the main hearing, including deadlines for witness statements, expert qualifications, and final submissions.