Harold George Elston

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.

The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.

The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.

The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.

The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct a sideroad from seasonal to year-round use.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Township of Clearview requested a six-month adjournment because the proposed road work would encroach into wetland areas, requiring an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officers granted the adjournment and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates to allow the amendment process to take place.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals from the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct 26/27 Sideroad.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, including dates for the continuation of the pre-hearing conference, motions, and the main hearing, as well as requirements for witness lists, expert meetings, and the exchange of evidence.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for road reconstruction, several individuals and organizations requested party, participant, or presenter status.

The Hearing Officers granted the requests, finding that the applicants met the respective requirements under the Rules of Practice, as their interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing and they had a genuine interest in the subject matter.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its application for judicial review of a ministerial order prohibiting public access to certain Crown lands adjacent to Bala Falls for safety reasons.

It argued that the site was subject to a protected portage under s. 65(4) of the Public Lands Act and that s. 3 required the frontage to be set aside for recreational and access purposes.

The court held that s. 28 of the Public Lands Act is not subject to ss. 3 or 65(4), and that the minister's decision to restrict access was reasonable given the public safety concerns.

The court also held that the common law right of navigation does not include a right to portage over another's land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to each respondent.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes brought an application for judicial review to stop the Ministry of Natural Resources from leasing Crown lands to Swift River Energy Limited for the construction of a hydro-electric facility.

The Township argued that the Ministry's decision to issue a Notice under s. 28 of the Public Lands Act prohibiting public access to the lands was unreasonable and an attempt to thwart portage and public access rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's decision was reasonable given the public safety concerns associated with the site, where two drownings had previously occurred.

The court also noted that a lease of Crown lands does not constitute a disposition under s. 65(4) of the Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that directed the municipality to repeal a site-specific zoning by-law amendment permitting the construction of a boathouse on a narrow waterway.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in its interpretation of the official plan, statutory interpretation principles, and the requirement to 'have regard to' the municipal council's decision under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found no errors of law, concluding the OMB's decision was defensible and properly considered the planning evidence and council's decision.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that a proposed visitation centre at Mount Pleasant Cemetery was not permitted under the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the proposed visitation centre, which includes a chapel, visitation rooms, and reception facilities, constitutes an 'associated use' under the by-law and falls within the definition of 'cemetery services' under the Cemeteries Act.

Mattamy applied for approval of a plan of subdivision that included laneways with widths of 10.5 metres.

The City of Toronto opposed assuming the laneways because they were substandard in width, proposing instead that they be privately owned.

Mattamy appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which stated a case to the Divisional Court to determine if it had jurisdiction to compel the City to assume the public lanes and municipal services against its wishes.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is a statutory tribunal with no inherent jurisdiction and that neither the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, 2001, nor the Ontario Municipal Board Act conferred jurisdiction on the OMB to compel a municipality to assume roads or services.