Jonathon Kenneth Bradbury

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

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions but had not finalized an agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for August 10, 2026, directing that if a settlement is not reached by then, the hearing will be converted to a Case Management Conference to set dates for a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and the development of a concrete management plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for April 8, 2026, to either schedule hearing dates or consider a proposed settlement.

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

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to finalize an action plan and settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 2024.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because they had made progress in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to receive updates and potentially schedule a settlement hearing.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks concerning the deposit and removal of waste at a property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties presented a consensus Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste from a property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were awaiting the results of a survey to confirm the location of certain materials, which would facilitate a potential settlement.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to receive the survey results and finalize the settlement.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste from a site.

During a case management conference, the parties jointly requested a stay of five items in the Order pending the appeal's resolution, and agreed to add two new items requiring notice to future successors in interest.

The Tribunal found that the waste, consisting of construction materials in a rural area, did not pose a danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the stay and amended the Order on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the deposit and removal of waste at a property in St. Thomas.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were close to a settlement and expected to agree on a stay order for most of the action items.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft stay order by July 22, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for August 31, 2022.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for a hauled sewage disposal site on an adjacent property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal under section 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to satisfy the two-part test under section 41.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable, as it was based on comprehensive technical reports and included stringent conditions to protect water resources and prevent off-site impacts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the ECA could result in significant harm to the environment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The parties reported progress in settlement discussions and requested a further conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and permitted participants to make written submissions prior to the conclusion of settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval for its quarry.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties requested a three-month adjournment to allow the Ministry to review concurrent applications for the quarry and a neighbouring grinding facility.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a continuation of the pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to two individuals who had previously been granted Presenter status under the former Environmental Review Tribunal rules.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of hazardous waste and the completion of a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment.

Following a previous decision ordering the Director to amend the order, the parties disagreed on the compliance deadlines for the remaining work items.

The appellants requested an extension because their retained Qualified Person was occupied with emergency work at another property following a fire.

The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed-upon extended compliance dates of August 3, 2021, for the Action Plan and October 29, 2021, for the Final Report, and directed the Director to issue the amended order with these dates.

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

A case management teleconference was held to set a return date and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment.

The court scheduled a one-day ZOOM videoconference hearing for August 20, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic exchange of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box and hyperlinked factums.

Lafarge Canada Limited appealed three Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding alleged exceedances of total suspended solids and reporting failures at its quarry and cement terminal.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director agreed to amend the orders to remove certain contraventions and associated penalties, as the discharges did not meet the definition of 'process effluent'.

Lafarge agreed to pay the remaining penalty amounts totaling $80,151.40.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, amended the orders, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to perform work and provide financial assurance regarding a foundry sand waste pile on their property.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants would withdraw their appeal, the original order would be revoked, and a new order would be issued requiring the complete removal of the foundry sand by November 1, 2019.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of demolition waste from its property.

The appellant argued the materials were being sorted for recycling and were not waste, and that the Ministry erred in treating the movement of materials as a deposit on a new site.

The Tribunal found that the co-mingled demolition debris constituted waste under the Environmental Protection Act and that leaving it on the site for an extended period established an unapproved waste disposal site.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Director's Order was upheld with amended compliance dates.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and other actions at a site in Brockville.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties consented to a stay of Items 1 to 15 of the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from issuing a stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for the hearing and next steps.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding the management of a foundry sand waste pile.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal granted presenter status to two neighbouring property owners who raised concerns about potential impacts on the local drinking water aquifer.

The Tribunal also scheduled a mediation session and a further pre-hearing conference at the request of the parties.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing its motion to stay construction of a wind turbine project and its application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to halt construction, alleging violations of the Renewable Energy Approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's letter confirming construction was unavoidable did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Consequently, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify an injunction.