Richard James

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 Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Approval Holder brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of two witness statements filed by the Appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal struck evidence relating to property values on consent.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the acoustician's evidence regarding future noise compliance and health impacts, finding that the evidence was arguably relevant to the Appellant's Charter section 7 argument and that it was premature to rule on the expert's qualifications prior to cross-examination.