Sal Spitale

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a multi-storey residential development on lands located within the Humber River Valley.

In this Phase 1 hearing, the sole issue was whether the subject lands are developable given their natural heritage and hazard constraints, including significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, and flood hazards.

The Tribunal found that while the lands contain these significant features, they are developable in principle, as the Provincial Policy Statement permits development if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The appeals were ordered to advance to a Phase 2 hearing to evaluate the specific proposed development.

The applicant brought a Motion for Directions under s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act, seeking a declaration that its zoning by-law amendment application was complete and that the City's requirements for additional studies were unreasonable.

The subject property contains a natural heritage system, including a creek and flood hazard.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority required extensive studies to determine the developable area and assess natural hazards.

The Tribunal found that the City's requirements, as set out in its Official Plan, were reasonable and necessary given the site's conditions.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellants appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal confirming the director's issuance of renewable energy approvals for two wind turbine projects.

They argued that section 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires a two-step process shifting the onus to the approval-holder, that the tribunal erred in rejecting the material contribution test for causation, and that they were denied procedural fairness when an adjournment was refused.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statute imposes a single onus on the appellants to prove harm, the material contribution test was properly rejected, and the tribunal reasonably exercised its discretion in denying the adjournment.

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 appellant in a renewable energy approval appeal brought a motion seeking disclosure of the complete Species At Risk Report submitted by the approval holder to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The approval holder had only disclosed redacted portions it deemed relevant to the appellant's proposed expert evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the report in its entirety, finding it potentially relevant to the appeal.

However, to protect species at risk, the Tribunal ordered that the report be marked confidential and its disclosure limited to the parties' counsel and expert witnesses.