Bridget Mills

The applicant sought official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as an aggregate license, to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

The municipality and local residents opposed the expansion, raising concerns about noise, air quality, blasting (specifically flyrock), traffic safety, and social impacts.

The Tribunal evaluated expert evidence and found that the proposed expansion, with its integrated mitigation and monitoring measures, would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal rejected the objectors' request for a fixed flyrock exclusion zone and found the applicant's proposed traffic safety protocols sufficient.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and license were approved in principle.

The appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a hot mix asphalt plant on a portion of their property.

The Tribunal found that the proposed split land use designation, designating the eastern portion as General Industrial, conformed to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined that the asphalt plant is a permitted use within the General Industrial designation.

Opposing parties argued the plant would cause adverse odour effects on a nearby food packaging facility and negatively impact the area's economic development.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the food facility was not a sensitive land use, the odour modelling was based on unrealistic maximum operating scenarios, and the plant's design met urban design policies.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved on an interim basis pending an Environmental Compliance Approval and site plan application.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amended Environmental Compliance Approval permitting a cement manufacturing facility to increase its use of alternative low-carbon fuels from 96 to 400 tonnes per day.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable because it failed to impose stringent emissions standards, lacked comprehensive ambient air monitoring, and failed to properly consider the Ministry's Statement of Environmental Values, including the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The evidence demonstrated the Director relied on comprehensive scientific studies showing the expanded use of alternative fuels would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts and would comply with applicable provincial air standards.

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.