Eric K. 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 applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to a hydroelectric station on the Mississippi River.

The applicants raised concerns regarding water levels, endangered species habitat, and conflict with a water management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that both applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants failed to establish under the first branch of the test in s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights that no reasonable person could have made the decision to issue the permit.

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 Tribunal issued an order regarding the scope of the continuation of a hearing concerning appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal had previously found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

In this order, the Tribunal determined that the Approval Holder would be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding proposed remedies to address the identified harm.

The Tribunal also clarified the tests, considerations, and onus of proof applicable under section 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act for the remedy phase of the hearing.

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 respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $6,156.71 following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay.

The appellant argued that as a public interest litigant, no costs should be awarded, noting it had ultimately obtained the interim remedy from the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The court agreed with the appellant and ordered no costs for the motion.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County brought a motion to stay a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind power project pending the disposition of its appeal.

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

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Environmental Review Tribunal found that there was a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm would ensue to the spring foraging habitat of the Blanding's Turtle, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part, halting vegetation clearing in identified spring foraging habitat.

The appellant, representing Ontario grain farmers, applied under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a regulation that restricted the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The appellant argued the regulation was unworkable and sought an interpretation that would effectively delay its implementation.

The motion judge struck the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was not ambiguous and the appellant was improperly seeking to rewrite the regulation rather than resolve a genuine interpretive dispute.

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 plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

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 appellant brought an urgent motion to stay physical work on a renewable energy project pending its appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had dismissed a similar motion, with reasons to follow.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that without the Tribunal's reasons, it could not assess whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm from the limited vegetation clearing proposed, and noted the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.