Isabelle O'Connor

The appellants sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil deposited on the subject property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and compliance prior to a hearing constituted irreparable harm due to mootness, the balance of convenience favoured the Director and the public interest in protecting drinking water sources.

The motions for a stay were denied, but the Tribunal granted alternative relief by extending the compliance deadlines by nine weeks.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Denison Mines Inc. of conditions attached to an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for the decommissioning of a former uranium mine.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment to facilitate settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed a new Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding waste storage.

The new order was issued to implement a settlement agreement and a prior OLT order that amended a previous Director's Order.

The appellants argued the new order was distinct and subject to fresh appeal rights.

The OLT found that the new order was a continuation of the previous process and substantively the same as the amended order agreed upon by the parties.

The OLT dismissed the appeal without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction and having no reasonable prospect of success, as it cannot hear an appeal of its own consent order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a consultant and apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a private sewage works at a motel and trailer park.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested an extension of the Order's timelines, arguing they intended to cease operations and dismantle the septic system by November 2024.

The Director opposed the extension, citing environmental risks.

The Tribunal scheduled a future Case Management Conference and a two-day merit hearing, allowing the parties time to attempt settlement negotiations.

The appellant brought a motion to stay the requirements of a Director's Order pending the resolution of its appeal regarding the removal of demolition waste.

At the Case Management Conference, the Director consented to the stay, noting no concerns regarding the prohibitions in section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent without the need for a motion hearing.

The Ministry moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by a Drive Clean facility and its owner.

The applicants sought to review an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of their accreditation and certification for falsifying test results.

The Ministry argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Performance Contract.

The court found that while the accreditation process is a licensing system, there was no legislative intent in the Environmental Protection Act to override the mandatory arbitration clause.

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and was quashed.

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 appellant, operator of a concrete batching facility, appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued by the Director.

The amendments changed the calculation of truck arrival limits from 'per hour' to 'per 60 minute period', clarified that 'deliveries' included all truck arrivals and departures, and added a requirement to record the arrival and departure times of all trucks.

The appellant argued these changes were novel, impractical, and not supported by noise guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the amendments were appropriate to prevent the clustering of truck arrivals, mitigate noise impacts on neighbouring residents, and ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's amendments and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was acquitted of operating a heavy diesel-fuelled motor vehicle that contravened emission standards under O. Reg. 361/98.

The justice of the peace acquitted the respondent because the Crown had not proved the Drive Clean Guide, which was incorporated by reference into the regulation.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 5(4) of the Regulations Act, the justice of the peace was required to take judicial notice of the regulation and the Guide incorporated within it.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered.