Heather McLeod-Kilmurray

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a conditionally approved Development Permit that would allow the conversion of a barn into a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appeal failed to disclose a planning justification under s. 25(8.1)(a) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's concerns regarding noise and land use compatibility constituted valid planning justifications that should be tested at a full hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot mix asphalt plant and aggregate depot.

The applicant raised concerns regarding noise, air emissions, and the facility's location, but failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the Ministry's engineers.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding the applicant did not meet the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

Prior to the main hearing, the appellant indicated his intention to withdraw the appeal, and the Director did not object.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call and issued an order setting procedural directions and dates for the exchange of documents and witness statements ahead of the main hearing.