10 total
No costs awarded for preliminary motions as the parties' respective successes offset each other.
Following preliminary motions in an application for judicial review concerning a wind energy project, both the applicant and the intervenor sought costs.
The applicant sought full indemnity costs for a motion for party status and a motion for protective costs.
The intervenor sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the motions were unnecessary.
The court found that the applicant was successful on the first motion, while the intervenor was successful on the second.
Noting the excessive costs claimed and inadequate cost outlines, the court concluded that the entitlements offset each other and made no order as to costs.
Appeal of renewable energy approval amendment dismissed as issues raised were outside the scope of the amendment.
The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.
The Approval Holder and the Director brought motions to strike the Notice of Appeal and dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal raised issues unrelated to the specific amendment, which only allowed for an alternate transformer.
The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to allege any harm arising specifically from the amendment.
Costs applications dismissed as conduct of the Approval Holder and Director was not unreasonable or in bad faith.
Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.
The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.
The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.
Motions to strike granted; notice of appeal and witness statements struck, and appeal dismissed.
The Director and the Approval Holder brought motions to strike the appellant's Notice of Appeal regarding an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.
The Tribunal granted the motions, struck the Notice of Appeal and the appellant's witness statements, and dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.
The Tribunal also granted participant status to two entities.
Motions for public interest standing and protective costs denied; OEB's motion to quash judicial review granted.
The applicant brought motions for declarations of justiciability and public interest standing, a protective costs order, and an order for further records in its application for judicial review of approvals for a wind energy project.
The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) moved to quash the application as it related to its decision.
The court dismissed the applicant's motions, finding the standing and justiciability issues premature without a full evidentiary record, and denying the protective costs order and records request.
The court granted the OEB's motion to quash, finding the environmental and social issues raised by the applicant were outside the OEB's jurisdiction.
Appeal of wind turbine refusal dismissed following settlement amending species protection conditions.
The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines as part of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.
The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to amend a condition of the approval relating to the protection of Blanding's turtles during construction and maintenance activities, and the appellant proposed to withdraw the appeal.
The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding the amendment to be in the public interest and consistent with the Environmental Protection Act, and dismissed the proceeding.
Tribunal granted a remedy hearing following findings that a wind project would cause serious harm.
The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.
The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.
The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.
The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.
The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.
Project proponent granted intervener status without conditions; mayor's motion to intervene in wind project challenge dismissed.
Two moving parties, wpd White Pines and Ron Higgins, sought party or intervener status in an application for judicial review challenging the approval of a wind energy project.
The court found that wpd White Pines, the project proponent, was not a necessary party under Rule 5.03 but granted it intervener status under Rule 13.01 without the conditions requested by the applicant.
The court dismissed the motion by Ron Higgins, finding he did not meet the criteria for intervention and his participation would unduly delay the proceedings.
Tribunal sets schedule and in-person format for remedy phase of wind project appeal.
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.
Tribunal granted parties the opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on remedies for environmental harm.
The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.
The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.
The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.
