Eric K. Gillespie

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 appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

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.

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.

An agricultural industry association sought a stay of a provincial regulation restricting the use of neonicotinoid‑treated seeds pending further compliance time, arguing farmers would suffer economic harm due to regulatory timing requirements.

The province opposed and brought a cross‑motion to strike the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that injunctive relief against the Crown is highly restricted and unavailable absent circumstances such as deliberate flouting of the law, which were not present.

Even if relief were available, the applicant failed to meet the RJR‑MacDonald test for an interlocutory stay because the alleged harm was speculative and compensable in damages and the balance of convenience favoured environmental protection.

The court also held the application improperly sought to rewrite or delay the operation of a regulation rather than determine legal rights and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

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.

Following dismissal of an application under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act as out of time, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant argued the matter was public interest litigation and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that applications under the Act do not attract a blanket public interest exception and that unsuccessful applicants may be ordered to pay costs.

Although the respondents sought substantial indemnity or significant partial indemnity costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and declined to award enhanced costs.

Costs were fixed at a reduced all-inclusive amount reflecting reasonableness and access to justice considerations.

The appellant, CNH, appealed a decision of the Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal.

During an attendance before the Divisional Court, the parties consented to refer the matter back to the Tribunal but could not agree on costs.

Following the Tribunal's subsequent decision, both parties sought costs for the earlier court attendance.

The court found neither party was entitled to the excessive costs sought and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the attendance fixed at $2,500.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal, the respondents sought their costs.

The applicant argued it should be shielded from costs as a public interest litigant, but the court found it failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the test.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Preston Sand and $9,000 for the Township.

Preston Sand's request to have costs awarded personally against the individual members of the applicant corporation was dismissed, as it failed to prove the corporation was a 'man of straw' and failed to provide adequate notice to the non-parties.

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 applicant sought to be relieved from paying costs under the public interest principle after its application was dismissed.

The Divisional Court declined to deprive the respondents of costs, noting that while the applicant had no pecuniary interest, the application was without legal basis given clear and recent precedent.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to each of the respondents.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding zoning by-law amendments for an aggregate operation.

The court applied the Enbridge Gas test and found that while the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the explanation of inadvertence for the delay was insufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal challenged the Board's factual weighing of prejudice in excluding expert testimony, which did not raise a meritorious question of law.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.