John A. Terry

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval granted to the approval holder for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered unopposed requests for participant and presenter status from various individuals and organizations.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a conservation authority and a local resident, and presenter status to a naturalist group and a citizens' coalition.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.

In a preliminary hearing for an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and a local resident, and presenter status to two other individuals.

The Tribunal also confirmed the procedural schedule leading up to the main hearing.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 9-turbine wind facility on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, shadow flicker, and safety risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, including groundwater and bird species at risk.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus of proving the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act, relying on the expert evidence provided by the approval holder.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision confirmed.

The approval holder brought a motion to define the issue to be determined in the remaining portion of the hearing and to strike portions of two witness statements.

The motion was dismissed, with reasons to follow.

The appellant in a renewable energy approval appeal brought a motion seeking disclosure of the complete Species At Risk Report submitted by the approval holder to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The approval holder had only disclosed redacted portions it deemed relevant to the appellant's proposed expert evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the report in its entirety, finding it potentially relevant to the appeal.

However, to protect species at risk, the Tribunal ordered that the report be marked confidential and its disclosure limited to the parties' counsel and expert witnesses.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for participant and presenter status in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Municipality of Grey Highlands and the Brewster Lake Home Owners' Association, and presenter status to several individuals, subject to procedural directions limiting duplication and ensuring relevance.

The Tribunal also established the schedule for the hearing.

The applicant sought to be relieved from paying costs under the public interest principle after its application was dismissed.

The Divisional Court declined to deprive the respondents of costs, noting that while the applicant had no pecuniary interest, the application was without legal basis given clear and recent precedent.

The applicant was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to each of the respondents.

The Approval Holder brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of two witness statements filed by the Appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal struck evidence relating to property values on consent.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the acoustician's evidence regarding future noise compliance and health impacts, finding that the evidence was arguably relevant to the Appellant's Charter section 7 argument and that it was premature to rule on the expert's qualifications prior to cross-examination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard a motion to strike portions of two witness statements in an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal ordered that a specific paragraph of one witness statement be struck on consent of the parties.

The motion to strike portions of the second witness statement was dismissed at this time, with reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval issued for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Municipality of Grey Highlands sought participant status, while several individuals and a homeowners association sought presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the requests, subject to the condition that their presentations be relevant to the permissible grounds of appeal and confined to the issues raised in the notice of appeal.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the main hearing.

East Durham Wind, LP moved to be added as a party or intervener in an application for judicial review concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for its wind project.

The applicant opposed the motion, while the respondent Ministry consented.

The court granted East Durham Wind party intervener status under Rule 13.01, finding it had a direct economic interest and could make a useful contribution.

The court also granted the moving party's request to conditionally transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Toronto to facilitate an expedited hearing before the scheduled start of project construction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The applicant argued the Director failed to comply with regulatory requirements and denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing.

In the alternative, the court held that the Director's decision to dispense with strict compliance with notice requirements was reasonable, and the consultation process met the common law requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that her long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy were to be reduced by payments she received from CPP and HOOPP disability plans.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the policy language clear.

The respondents' cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, with net costs of $7,500 awarded to the respondents.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board declining to review its previous decision that allowed a wind energy company to build distribution facilities on municipal road allowances.

The municipality argued the Board erred in interpreting its review power too narrowly and that the presence of an original panel member on the review panel created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's interpretation of its review rules was reasonable and that the participation of an original member in a reconsideration process does not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The United Mexican States appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its application to set aside a portion of a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration award in favour of Cargill, Incorporated.

The arbitral tribunal had awarded Cargill damages for both its Mexican subsidiary's lost sales and its own lost sales of high fructose corn syrup to the subsidiary ('up-stream losses') resulting from Mexico's trade barriers.

Mexico argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award up-stream losses.

The Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for true questions of jurisdiction under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law is correctness.

However, the Court found that the tribunal correctly identified its jurisdictional limits and that the determination of whether the up-stream losses arose out of Mexico's breaches was a matter for the tribunal's expertise, not a jurisdictional issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $26,457.59.

The Law Foundation of Ontario, responsible for the appellants' costs, argued for a reduction to $12,000 due to novelty, public interest, and access to justice concerns.

The Court of Appeal fixed the respondent's costs at $18,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, reflecting the nature of the appeal and the dismissal of the cross-appeal.