John Georgakopoulos

The Appellants brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing of their appeal of a Director's Order regarding sewage works on their property.

They sought a three-month adjournment to allow time to complete and submit an amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application, which they argued would resolve the issues in dispute.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing that the ECA process is separate from the appeal of the Order and that previous adjournments had not resulted in a resolution.

The Tribunal applied the criteria for adjournments and found no serious consequences or prejudice to the Appellants if the hearing proceeded, as they could pursue the ECA concurrently.

Noting the history of previous adjournments and the public interest in an expeditious resolution, the Tribunal denied the motion to adjourn.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order relating to sewage works, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing to allow time for the Director to consider an amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal directed that the adjournment request be heard via a written motion and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) to an adjacent industrial facility, arguing the approval failed to consider noise and vibration impacts on their proposed residential development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Tribunal found that the Director's decision was reasonable, as it followed Ministry guidelines and the proposed residential development was a hypothetical scenario pending zoning approval.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish that the Amended ECA could result in significant environmental harm, as the facility's emissions met established standards and the ECA included conditions for future reassessment if zoning changes occurred.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to resolve inadequacies in existing sewage works on a property with a history of industrial uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that their experts were engaged in productive discussions and requested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence in September 2025, which will be vacated if mediation is successful, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ministry advised that the Order had been fulfilled.

The appellant requested additional time to review newly disclosed documents and determine how to proceed with the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter held in abeyance until the appellant requests a subsequent conference or until April 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant requested an adjournment to review a recently received technical report review from the Ministry.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and ordered a further exchange of relevant documents.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for a former industrial property in Guelph, arguing that the CPU failed to adequately address the risk of contaminated groundwater migrating offsite to their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that while there was a risk of contaminant migration to one of the adjacent properties (10 Kingsmill), there was no risk of migration to the other (490 York).

The Tribunal held that the CPU's groundwater monitoring program and contingency requirements provided sufficient safeguards to address the potential for adverse effects, and that implementing physical barriers would be premature and potentially harmful given the complex fractured bedrock environment.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the CPU to reclassify two monitoring wells as downgradient and to require the City to provide advance notice of groundwater sampling to the adjacent property owners, but otherwise confirmed the CPU.

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

Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also determined the order of evidence, directing the appellants to present their case first.

Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc. brought a motion to be added as a Party to an appeal regarding a Certificate of Property Use issued for a neighbouring property.

Electrolux is a defendant in related civil proceedings concerning historic contamination.

The Director and the City opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that Electrolux had a genuine interest in the proceeding because the issue of historic contamination was relevant to both the Tribunal appeal and the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal granted Electrolux Party status, limited to providing evidence and submissions on the specific issue of historic contamination, and required it to shelter under the appellants' issue without altering the existing procedural schedule.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding sewage works at a decommissioned industrial site intended for redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement on the appellants' motion for an interim stay.

The Tribunal ordered that specific items of the Director's Order be stayed pending the disposition of the appeal on its merits, while other items remain in effect, and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 9, 2024.

The appeal concerns a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act requiring work to prevent, decrease, or eliminate an adverse effect from a contaminant.

The procedural order sets out deadlines for disclosure, witness lists, witness statements, expert meetings, and the filing of a hearing plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Guelph, the Florence Lane Residents Group, and Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc., finding their participation necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to revise two issues on the draft Issues List to ensure they are framed in a neutral context.

A further Case Management Conference and a nine-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring environmental investigation and reporting regarding potential trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at its site, pending an appeal hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that potential compliance costs could be pursued in ongoing civil litigation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in identifying the source of the TCE contamination.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Certificate of Property Use issued for a property in Guelph.

The parties agreed on most issues for the hearing, and the Tribunal resolved a disagreement over the wording of one issue regarding contaminant migration.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing to commence in December 2023 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant, owner of the subject property, brought a motion for party status in an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a hotel on its lands.

The appellants, adjacent industrial landowners, opposed the motion on the basis that it was brought late, just before a scheduled settlement hearing.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Oakville (Town), Re and found that the applicant had a direct interest, its participation would serve the public interest, and denying status would cause it significant prejudice.

The motion for party status was granted.

The Tribunal held a video hearing regarding appeals against a zoning by-law passed by the Town of Whitby.

The Applicant, who owned the subject property, had missed a previous Case Management Conference due to technical difficulties and was excluded from subsequent settlement discussions between the Appellants and the Town.

The Applicant retained new counsel and indicated an intent to bring a motion for party status and an adjournment.

The Tribunal adjourned the scheduled settlement hearing and set a timetable for the filing of motion materials regarding the Applicant's request for party status.

The appellants appealed the passing of a zoning by-law by the Town of Whitby.

During a telephone conference call, the parties advised the Tribunal that technical work was nearing completion and requested the scheduling of a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing and provided directions for the submission of settlement materials.

The appellants appealed the Town of Whitby's passing of a zoning by-law that would permit the construction of two hotels on a property located near industrial uses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellants expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation to address concerns regarding noise, air quality, dust, and visual impacts on their industrial operations.

The Tribunal agreed that mediation had merit and scheduled a further Telephone Conference Call to receive an update on potential mediation and to establish an Issues List and Procedural Order.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.