Jessica E Mathewson Boily

The appellants appealed a Municipal Cost Recovery Order (MCRO) issued by the City of St. Catharines for $4,155,116.21 relating to the cleanup of a spill following an explosion and fire at a hazardous waste facility.

The appellants argued the MCRO included costs unrelated to the spill, was unreasonable, and that the individual directors were not in control of the pollutants.

The Tribunal found that under s. 100.1(15) of the Environmental Protection Act, its jurisdiction was limited to considering ownership/control and the relation/reasonableness of costs.

The Tribunal held the individual directors had charge, management, and control of the pollutants.

However, the Tribunal deducted $116,628.57 for costs unrelated to preventing adverse effects (legal fees, insurance adjuster, unsupported expenses) and $350,778.55 for unreasonable on-site project labour costs incurred while supporting the Office of the Fire Marshal's investigation.

The appeal was allowed in part, revising the MCRO amount to $3,687,709.09.

The appellants appealed a cost recovery order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks following an explosion and fire at a hazardous waste processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement reducing the payable amount from $133,097.14 to $100,000, removing the individual directors from the order, and requiring a site closure plan.

The City of St. Catharines sought Party status but was granted Participant status to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it ensured recovery of reasonable costs and provided for the prompt closure and remediation of the site.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Nelson Quarry in Burlington.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 60-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2025.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a Municipal Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines following a spill at a hazardous waste facility.

Both the appellants and the respondent filed motions shortly before the scheduled merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted relief from its rules regarding motion timelines and directed that both motions be heard on the first day of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal also granted a one-day adjournment of the merit hearing for confidential personal reasons and issued directions regarding the hearing plan and joint book of documents.

The appellants brought a motion seeking an order for discovery, an affidavit of documents from the City, and an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing regarding a $4.1 million cost recovery order for an environmental spill.

The appellants argued that the City's document productions were deficient and illegible.

The City opposed the adjournment but agreed during the hearing to provide a sworn affidavit of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the City to deliver the affidavit of documents in a legible and searchable format and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the appellants were entitled to file reply submissions and were not case splitting.

The appellants appealed a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines under the Environmental Protection Act for over $4.1 million in expenses related to a spill and fire.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested a motion date to seek additional disclosure of documents and invoices from the City, and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The City opposed the adjournment and argued it had already provided extensive disclosure.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion for additional disclosure particulars but did not adjourn the merit hearing.

The City of Burlington brought a motion for directions to amend a Notice of Undertaking filed by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Burlington Quarry.

The City sought to compel the consolidation of potential future hearings for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW), an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and an Aggregate Resources Act site plan amendment into the current consolidated proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the City's request to include the site plan amendment, finding no indication that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry intended to propose amendments that would trigger a hearing.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion under O. Reg. 351/21 to defer the PTTW and ECA applications until it is determined whether hearings will actually be required for those approvals, noting that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks typically requires land use approvals to be in place before issuing such permits.

The Tribunal confirmed the consolidation of the five existing appeals.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for a proposed quarry expansion, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a 60-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal adjourned a motion by the City of Burlington to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals due to the late filing of motion materials, which the panel had not fully received.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to hear the adjourned motion and finalize the procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines following an explosion and fire at the appellants' property that allegedly resulted in a spill of 11.5 million litres of contaminated douse water.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Director of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 14-day Merit Hearing.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot-mix asphalt plant to operate in conjunction with an existing quarry.

The Applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the Director failed to properly consider the Statement of Environmental Values, cumulative effects, common law rights, and applicable guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have made the decision, as the Director appropriately considered the relevant studies, policies, and mitigation measures.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and licenses to permit a quarry expansion.

The City of Burlington brought a motion to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals.

Due to concerns raised by the Tribunal regarding the City's supporting affidavit being sworn by a law clerk, the City withdrew its motion with liberty to refile.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to finalize the procedural order and hear the refiled motion.

R.W. Tomlinson Limited brought a motion for costs against Keep Napanee Great (KNG) following KNG's unsuccessful application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval for a mobile concrete batching plant.

Tomlinson argued KNG's conduct was unreasonable and in bad faith, seeking over $32,000.

KNG, a self-represented community group, brought a counter-motion for $2,000 in costs, alleging Tomlinson's motion was an intimidation tactic.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed both motions, finding that KNG's procedural missteps as a self-represented litigant did not amount to clearly unreasonable or bad faith conduct warranting costs.

The Tribunal also found Tomlinson's motion, while unsuccessful, was not an abuse of process based on the information it had at the time.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiffs to add new defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unnecessarily complicated by the responding parties.

The court found the plaintiffs were entitled to costs but not on a substantial indemnity basis, as there was no reprehensible conduct by the opposing parties.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $25,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the responding parties within 30 days, rejecting the suggestion to reserve costs to the trial judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to add a new corporate defendant and several individual defendants, and to amend their Statement of Claim to increase damages to $8,000,000 and assert claims of fraud.

The plaintiffs alleged that the original defendant transferred its business and assets to the new corporate defendant to defeat the plaintiffs' claims regarding environmental contamination advice.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs moved with sufficient dispatch upon discovering the new corporation and that the allegations were more conveniently dealt with in the present action.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellant First Nation appealed a costs decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the 'polluter pays' principle and by not considering the appellant's First Nation status when assessing whether the respondent's conduct was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, costs are only awarded for unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The Court found that the 'polluter pays' principle does not apply to costs considerations and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded the respondent's conduct in defending the appeal was not unreasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to proceed with examinations for discovery in the main action separately from the third party claim.

The main action involved allegations of negligence against environmental consultants for failing to identify contamination prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the property.

One defendant issued a third party claim against previous owners, causing significant delays in scheduling discoveries.

The court granted the motion, finding no overlap in liability issues between the main and third party claims, and held that the plaintiff should not be prejudiced by further delays caused by the third party proceedings.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to review an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their application for costs against Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

MBQ argued that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider their unique circumstances as a First Nation at the first stage of the costs analysis (determining whether conduct was unreasonable).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no error of law in the original panel's application of the three-stage costs analysis under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The defendants brought a motion requiring the plaintiff to produce English-language translations of German-language documents listed in its Affidavit of Documents prior to examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued there was no obligation to translate documents produced on discovery.

The court held that, by analogy to the rules regarding interpreters at oral examinations and the general principle of proportionality, the producing party has an obligation to provide translations of relevant foreign-language documents at the discovery stage so the opposing party can understand the case it has to meet.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce translations of the key German-language emails at its own expense.