Jennifer Volpato

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for a former industrial property in Guelph, arguing that the CPU failed to adequately address the risk of contaminated groundwater migrating offsite to their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that while there was a risk of contaminant migration to one of the adjacent properties (10 Kingsmill), there was no risk of migration to the other (490 York).

The Tribunal held that the CPU's groundwater monitoring program and contingency requirements provided sufficient safeguards to address the potential for adverse effects, and that implementing physical barriers would be premature and potentially harmful given the complex fractured bedrock environment.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the CPU to reclassify two monitoring wells as downgradient and to require the City to provide advance notice of groundwater sampling to the adjacent property owners, but otherwise confirmed the CPU.

The Appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring it to take actions to address potential contamination at its property, pending an appeal.

The Tribunal found it had the authority to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the historic contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay.

The Appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as its financial costs were potentially recoverable in ongoing civil litigation and did not outweigh the public interest in identifying and managing the source of trichloroethylene contamination.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring environmental investigation and reporting regarding potential trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at its site, pending an appeal hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that potential compliance costs could be pursued in ongoing civil litigation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in identifying the source of the TCE contamination.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Director's Order requiring it to undertake actions to address contamination on its property.

The parties agreed to stay several items, but disputed whether Items 8 and 9, which required a Groundwater Monitoring Program and Report, could be stayed.

The Tribunal found that the items, as they related to existing wells, constituted an order to monitor, record, and report, which cannot be stayed under section 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion for an interim stay of those items was dismissed, though requirements relating to newly installed wells were stayed pending the main motion.

The appellant nursing home brought a motion for a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to pump and dispose of sewage off-site due to a malfunctioning septic system.

The appellant argued that the costs of compliance would cause irreparable financial harm, potentially leading to closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm, as the short-term costs were not shown to be fatal to the business.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the Director's precautionary approach to protect water resources.