Heather I. Gibbs

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.

The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.

The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The moving parties requested to schedule a preliminary motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a site, to add parties, and to order disclosure.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that the issues raised required a full hearing to resolve contested facts and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or irrelevant.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of unprocessed waste ash deposited at a church property.

During a telephone conference call, the parties consented to a schedule for pre-hearing motions, document exchange, and peremptory hearing dates.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions formalizing the agreed-upon schedule.

The Directors and the Instrument Holder requested clarification of the remedy sought by the Appellants in their appeals of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Tribunal ordered the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief, including proposed wording for replacement conditions where possible, to promote an efficient and effective hearing process.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to a hydroelectric station on the Mississippi River.

The applicants raised concerns regarding water levels, endangered species habitat, and conflict with a water management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that both applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants failed to establish under the first branch of the test in s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights that no reasonable person could have made the decision to issue the permit.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact from a 1990 spill on his property.

The Director subsequently revoked the order after receiving evidence that a third party had tampered with a neighbouring well by adding fuel oil, invalidating the samples, and that there was no credible evidence linking the 1990 spill to the current contamination.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the appeal.

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 appellant brought a motion for a stay of certain provisions of a Director's Order requiring the implementation of a remediation plan for an oil spill.

The respondent consented to the stay because other named orderees were actively complying with the order, meaning the stay would not result in environmental harm under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent pending the disposition of the appeal.

The City of London appealed a condition in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring annual water quality monitoring of the Thames River using the BioMAP method.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the condition, making the monitoring time-limited to five years and requiring sampling every other year.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for upgrades to an existing serviced campground resort.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties resolved their issues and the appellants withdrew their appeals.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the withdrawal of the appeals resulted in the automatic confirmation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to issue the development permit.

The appellants, directors of Essar Steel Algoma Inc., brought a consent motion for a stay of section 2.11 of a Director's order requiring them to undertake work and submit a final report regarding environmental conditions.

The Tribunal found that the section was not an order to monitor, record and report, and that granting the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay until the appeals are finally disposed of.

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.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct a 33-car parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

The appellant argued the parking lot was not a permitted use and would cause environmental harm, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Study and master plan were required.

The Hearing Officers found that the parking lot is a permitted use as a Bruce Trail access point and satisfies all relevant Development Criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the development permit was confirmed.

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 Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application for upgrades to an existing campground resort.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake requested party status and the Niagara Parks Commission requested participant status.

The Hearing Officers granted both requests, finding that the Town had a genuine public interest and could make a relevant contribution, and that the Parks Commission had a genuine public interest.

The pre-hearing conference was adjourned to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.

In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.