I. O’Connor

The instrument holder brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Permit to Take Water issued by the Director, which had been appealed by the appellants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement to lift the stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond water levels, berm inspections, water quality monitoring, and well sampling for residents.

The Tribunal found that the proposed conditions addressed the public interest considerations under s. 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act and would not result in danger to health, impairment of waters, or injury to property or the environment.

The motion to lift the automatic stay was granted on consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to the instrument holder for washing aggregates.

The granting of leave to appeal triggered an automatic stay of the permit under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The instrument holder brought a motion to remove the automatic stay and requested an interim lifting of the stay pending the motion's disposition.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the interim lifting of the automatic stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond management and well water sampling.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to CRH Canada Group Inc. for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The Tribunal found that both applicants had standing.

Applying the leave test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, given the failure to adequately apply the precautionary principle, preventive strategies, and sustainable development principles in light of scientific uncertainty regarding groundwater impacts.

The Tribunal also found the decision could result in significant environmental harm due to the potential for well contamination and flooding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that confirmed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project on Amherst Island.

The appellant raised nine issues, including the admission of expert evidence, consideration of mitigation measures outside the approval, factual findings regarding wildlife, and a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's evidentiary and procedural decisions were reasonable exercises of its discretion and statutory authority.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's factual findings or admit fresh evidence aimed at challenging those findings, as appeals to the court are strictly limited to questions of law under the Environmental Protection Act.