The applicants sought judicial review of a Ministry of the Environment decision approving an increase in sulphur production at a Suncor refinery, arguing the failure to conduct a cumulative effects assessment violated their Charter rights.
The respondents brought motions to strike the application as a collateral attack on prior approvals and to strike much of the applicants' affidavit evidence.
The applicants brought a cross-motion for a protective costs order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike the application, finding it was not plain and obvious it would fail.
The court allowed the motion to strike evidence in part, striking improper expert opinion and unattributed hearsay, but leaving relevance determinations to the hearing panel.
The motion for a protective costs order was dismissed, as the applicants had pro bono representation and the narrow administrative issue did not meet the exceptional public importance threshold.
