Eric Gillespie

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for presenter status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility in Prince Edward County.

Four individuals and organizations requested presenter status to provide evidence on birds, wildlife, ecosystems, and human health.

Finding that the requesters had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions, the Tribunal granted presenter status to all four, subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of their presentations.

The Approval Holder brought a motion for direction in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Director had approved 27 of the 29 proposed turbines.

The Approval Holder sought a direction that the parties submit evidence regarding the potential impacts of the full 29-turbine project, arguing it would be more efficient if they succeeded in a separate appeal to reinstate the two refused turbines.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Director's decision as issued, and declined to make advance rulings on the relevance of specific evidence.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address procedural matters and requests for status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Tribunal dismissed one appeal on consent.

It granted participant and presenter status to several individuals and a local business, limiting their presentations to issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied requests for party status from a municipality and two individuals, finding it unnecessary at this stage for procedural purposes, but allowed them to renew their requests if circumstances change.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, several entities requested party or presenter status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status to the Municipality of Prince Edward County and two individuals with cultural heritage expertise, finding they had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions.

The Tribunal denied party status to the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, as its interest was purely procedural and could be accommodated without formal party status.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario was granted presenter status.

The Tribunal also set the procedural schedule for the hearing.

The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy brought a motion for party status to address the remedy in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Ostrander Point Wind Park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request for party status but granted the alternative request for participant status.

The Tribunal ordered that the Conservancy may participate in motions but may not bring them, with reasons to follow.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion for costs in an ongoing environmental appeal.

Due to an objection by Waste Management of Canada Corporation regarding mediation confidentiality, MBQ requested that the motion be deferred until after the main hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered that the motion materials be marked confidential pending the hearing of the motion.

The appellant, a farm implement dealer, appealed the non-renewal of its dealer agreement by the respondent manufacturer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Farm Implements Act and Ontario Regulation 123/06 by failing to provide the required written notice with full reasons and an opportunity to cure before deciding not to renew the agreement.

The Tribunal determined that the regulation applied retrospectively to the existing contract, removing the respondent's unfettered right to not renew.

The Tribunal awarded the appellant damages for loss of profits based on a two-year reasonable notice period and for obsolete assets, totaling $139,846 plus pre-judgment interest.

At a pre-hearing conference following a Divisional Court order remitting certain liability issues back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal determined procedural matters for the resumed hearing.

The Tribunal ordered that CNH would lead evidence first on the remitted liability issues, as they arose from CNH's appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the liability and damages phases of the hearing, which had previously been bifurcated, be re-joined to avoid unnecessary delay and prejudice, noting that the original reasons for bifurcation no longer existed.

The applicant farm implement dealer brought a dispute against the respondent manufacturer regarding the end of their 19-year business relationship and warranty repair reimbursements.

The Tribunal divided the hearing into two phases, with Phase 1 focusing on liability.

The Tribunal found that the manufacturer did not breach section 18 of the Farm Implements Act regarding warranty reimbursements, as it paid the dealer in accordance with their existing agreement.

However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer breached Ontario Regulation 123/06 by refusing to renew the dealership agreement, as the Regulation removed the manufacturer's contractual right to unilaterally non-renew and required that renewal approval not be unreasonably withheld.

The applicant farm equipment dealer brought a motion for production and discovery against a non-party trade association, seeking confidential market share data to challenge the respondent manufacturer's termination of their dealership agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the requested data was protected by the common law privilege of confidentiality and the applicant failed to establish the relevance and importance of the documents.

The Tribunal also refused leave to examine the non-party for discovery, noting it would cause undue delay and expense.

The applicant was ordered to pay the non-party's costs of the motion.

The respondent school board applied for an order of costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission after several allegations in a human rights complaint were dismissed.

The Board of Inquiry found that while a partial dismissal of a complaint satisfies the jurisdictional pre-condition for awarding costs under s. 41(4) of the Human Rights Code, the dismissed allegations were not trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Commission's conduct of the case did not cause undue hardship to the respondent.

The application for costs was dismissed.

This is a decision on remedies following a finding that the respondent school boards discriminated against the complainant and subjected him to reprisals in two job competitions.

The Board of Inquiry ordered the successor school boards to pay special damages for wage loss and relocation expenses, general damages for loss of the right to freedom from discrimination, and damages for mental anguish.

The Board also ordered public interest remedies, including the posting of the decision, the development of recruitment policies incorporating reprisal protection, and notice to the complainant of future vacancies.

The complainant brought a motion to amend his human rights complaint to add allegations of reprisal and family status discrimination.

The Commission brought a motion to allow a witness residing in Germany to testify by speaker telephone.

The Board of Inquiry granted both motions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to amend the complaint as the respondents had adequate notice of the factual issues and would not be prejudiced.

The Board also interpreted section 5.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act as permitting parts of a hearing to be conducted electronically, finding that the respondents failed to establish significant prejudice from the witness testifying by telephone.

The respondent school boards brought a motion to rule that the Board of Inquiry Interim Rules of Practice did not apply to the hearing and to quash summonses served on their Directors of Education.

The adjudicator held that the 1994 amendments to the Human Rights Code and the Interim Rules applied because the hearing had been reassigned to a new panel.

The adjudicator set aside the summonses as overly broad but ordered the respondents to disclose specific, arguably relevant documents relating to the disputed job competitions, including minutes of meetings where decisions were made.

The adjudicator rejected the respondents' claim of social privilege over the board minutes and found the claim of solicitor-client privilege premature.