Jonathan W. Kahn

This was the ninth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant concerning the failure of the township to make a decision on applications for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The applications seek to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The parties resolved an issue regarding the consolidation of a related Environmental Review Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal scheduled a further telephone conference call to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent.

The Tribunal also substituted the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations for an individual objector.

A pending motion to consolidate an appeal regarding a permit to take water was scheduled to be heard at the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant brought a motion requesting an in-person hearing instead of a virtual hearing, citing his and his witnesses' lack of technological proficiency and anxiety regarding virtual platforms.

The Board dismissed the motion, noting that the applicant and witnesses could attend their counsel's office to testify with assistance.

The Board emphasized that the matter had already been delayed for almost two years and that electronic hearings are permitted under the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act 2020.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to the instrument holder for washing aggregates.

The granting of leave to appeal triggered an automatic stay of the permit under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The instrument holder brought a motion to remove the automatic stay and requested an interim lifting of the stay pending the motion's disposition.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the interim lifting of the automatic stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond management and well water sampling.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to CRH Canada Group Inc. for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The Tribunal found that both applicants had standing.

Applying the leave test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, given the failure to adequately apply the precautionary principle, preventive strategies, and sustainable development principles in light of scientific uncertainty regarding groundwater impacts.

The Tribunal also found the decision could result in significant environmental harm due to the potential for well contamination and flooding.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an amended permit to take water to the instrument holder for quarry operations.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement that did not require any changes to the permit, and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding as the appeal was withdrawn on consent without altering the decision under appeal.

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The Directors and the Instrument Holder requested clarification of the remedy sought by the Appellants in their appeals of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Tribunal ordered the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief, including proposed wording for replacement conditions where possible, to promote an efficient and effective hearing process.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals by the Concerned Citizens of Brant and the Corporation of the County of Brant against the issuance of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval to CRH Canada Group Inc. for an aggregate washing operation.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions and set a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The proponent sought various instruments and undertakings for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following an interim decision approving the undertakings and a deferral of the Environmental Compliance Approval and Permit to Take Water to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the proponent confirmed there were no inconsistencies between the draft Ministry instruments and the Board's approvals.

The Board issued its final decision confirming the interim decision.

The proponent sought approval for various instruments and undertakings required for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following extensive review and consultation, the public agencies and the proponent reached an agreement on modifications and conditions to protect natural heritage and water resources.

The Board reviewed the planning instruments, including official plan amendments, zoning by-laws, and the aggregate extraction licence, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The undertakings were approved.

A second prehearing was held regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

On consent of all parties, the Joint Board deferred consideration of the Permit to take Water and Environmental Compliance Approval to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The Board also varied the procedural schedule for serving and filing expert witness statements and related materials.

This was the first appearance before the Joint Board regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

The Board granted participant status to several individuals and one non-profit group, and set procedural directions and dates for the hearing of the merits.

The appellant in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind power project, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment, specifically focusing on Barn Owls and Bald Eagles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving that the project would cause such harm.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the project was unlikely to result in bird strikes or significant habitat displacement, and confirmed the Director's decision to issue the REA.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to secure and remediate a site containing hazardous waste.

During a telephone conference call, the Royal Bank of Canada requested to be removed as a party, which was granted on consent.

The parties also requested an adjournment of the preliminary hearing to continue mediation, which the Tribunal granted.