Eric Gillespie

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order directing that the continuation of the cross-examination of a witness for the approval holder take place before the Tribunal, or alternatively, directing counsel to refrain from further objections.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the transcript of the cross-examination and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

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 appellant brought three motions in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The motions sought to qualify a witness as an expert and to admit new evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motions in part, qualifying the witness as an energy consultant and admitting specific documents attached to the affidavits of the witness and another expert into evidence, while allowing the respondents to cross-examine the affiants on the newly admitted 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 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 appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

Following a finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to consider remedies.

The appellants brought a motion requesting that the continuation of the hearing be held in person rather than in writing.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that receiving evidence in writing was fair, would prevent further delay given the statutory six-month deadline, and would provide the best evidence to fulfill its mandate.

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 Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the closure of the Richmond Landfill Site.

The Tribunal considered the final wording of the conditions, rejecting an additional sentence proposed by the appellant regarding the delineation of leachate-impacted groundwater as redundant.

The Tribunal also granted an extension of time for the instrument holder to complete required work.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Director was ordered to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval.

The moving party, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, sought an interim stay of physical activities associated with a renewable energy approval for a wind power project, pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing would cause irreparable harm to Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

The Tribunal found that while harm to active turtles was not demonstrated, there was sufficient evidence that irreparable harm to vegetation and spring foraging habitat could occur.

The balance of convenience favoured the moving party, and the interim stay was granted.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project pending the scheduling of a motion hearing for a full stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the interim stay, with reasons to follow, and directed that the hearing of the motion for a stay be scheduled in writing as soon as possible.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay of a renewable energy approval for a wind power generation project, seeking to halt vegetation clearing and site preparation.

The moving party argued that the proposed work would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its evidence was speculative and did not account for the mitigation and avoidance measures required by the approval.

The Tribunal also found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.

In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order to stay all physical activities within the proposed wind project area associated with a Renewable Energy Approval.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, with reasons to follow.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.