Steven Strong

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer an aggregate licence from the objector (the current licensee) to the applicant (the landowner) after the extraction agreement between them expired and the pit sat dormant for over 20 years.

The objector requested a hearing, arguing the transfer should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay $750,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licence.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has an economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to attach a condition requiring financial compensation to a licence transfer.

The Tribunal held that resolving financial disputes between private parties is not necessary or incidental to its mandate of managing aggregate resources.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer without conditions.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer two aggregate licences from the appellant to the respondent landowner after their extraction agreement expired.

The appellant objected, seeking $518,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licences, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to direct financial compensation as a condition of a licence transfer under s. 18(8) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal held that resolving contractual disputes and claims for economic loss between a landowner and a licence holder is outside its mandate.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer of the licences to the respondent.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry referred the proposed transfer of an aggregate licence to the Tribunal after the current licensee objected.

On a motion to qualify expert witnesses, the Tribunal considered objections to two proposed experts based on alleged conflicts of interest.

The Tribunal qualified both experts, finding that the aggregate industry executive's general financial interest in the industry did not disqualify him, and that the Ministry employee's role was sufficiently detached to allow him to provide impartial evidence.

Two other proposed witnesses were conceded to be factual witnesses only.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit that would allow the importation of 1.8 million cubic metres of fill to rehabilitate a quarry.

The appellant argued the proposal was a permitted use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan, such as a mineral extraction operation or forest management.

The Hearing Officers found that the existing rehabilitation plan was substantially complete and that the proposal amounted to a commercial fill operation, which is not a permitted use.

The appeal was dismissed.