Graham Andrews

The applicant sought damages of $80,000 alleging that the respondent, a non-profit corporation administering a self-employment benefit program, failed to sell two seized dump trucks at fair market value following the applicant's default on a loan.

The respondent sold the trucks for $12,000 after they sat in a bailiff's yard for approximately one year.

The court dismissed the application on two grounds: first, the applicant's claim was barred by the Limitations Act, as he had knowledge of the sale price no later than June 2, 2022, and commenced the application on November 6, 2024; second, on the substantive merits, the respondent acted in good faith and took reasonable steps to obtain the best value possible.

The trucks required significant capital investment to comply with new regulations and were not commercially viable.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, in addition to a prior costs order of $500.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.

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 in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind power project, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment, specifically focusing on Barn Owls and Bald Eagles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving that the project would cause such harm.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the project was unlikely to result in bird strikes or significant habitat displacement, and confirmed the Director's decision to issue the REA.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.

The approval holder brought a motion to define the issue to be determined in the remaining portion of the hearing and to strike portions of two witness statements.

The motion was dismissed, with reasons to follow.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status from the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and two individuals.

The Tribunal granted the requests subject to general conditions, finding that the applicants had a genuine interest and would make a relevant contribution to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also confirmed procedural directions and the hearing schedule.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages against the City for groundwater contamination caused by road salt, which allegedly prevented the development of a medical office building with underground parking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence that it actually intended to build such a development and subsequently excluded the appellant's expert evidence, which was based on that rejected factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, or costs award.

The moving party, Windlectric Inc., proposed a wind energy project on Amherst Island.

The Ministry of the Environment deemed the application complete, initiating the technical review phase.

The responding party, an association opposing the project, sought judicial review to quash the completeness determination, arguing the application lacked an adequate emergency response plan.

Windlectric brought a motion to quash the application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that a completeness check is an administrative step, not a statutory power of decision or a matter subject to public law remedies.

The court also held that the application for judicial review was premature, as the administrative process and available appeals had not been exhausted.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that dismissed his appeal concerning a proposed development.

The OMB had dismissed the appeal on the basis that the moving party failed to present apparent land use planning grounds.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in law by equating 'land use planning grounds' with 'evidence from a land use planner' and by finding he had not tendered a land use planning opinion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's assessment of the evidence was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

The Court also found no reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision, as the evidence provided by the moving party was insufficient to demonstrate legitimate land use planning concerns.