Joseph F. Castrilli

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development on a contaminated brownfield site.

The proposed development includes the remediation of the site, which features a Provincially Significant Wetland and is adjacent to the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Tribunal found that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan, as it promotes efficient land use, intensification, and brownfield remediation.

However, the Tribunal did not accept jurisdiction over the capping of the wetland itself, as the PPS prohibits development in such areas, and instead approved the applicant's alternative requested relief.

Grassy Narrows First Nation applied for leave to appeal a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue a Permit to Take Water to Great Bear Resources Ltd. for an advanced exploration gold mining program.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the standing requirements under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Applying the leave to appeal test, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, as the Director failed to properly apply the precautionary principle, consider cumulative effects, and adopt an ecosystem approach in light of scientific uncertainty regarding mercury methylation and contaminant release.

The Tribunal also found that the decision could result in significant harm to the environment.

Leave to appeal was granted.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against the City of Kingston's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and agreed to schedule a five-week hearing on the merits commencing in January 2024.

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tiny's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and referred an application for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the extraction area and implementing mitigation measures.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had regard to the required matters under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The appeals were allowed, the planning instruments were approved, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a gravel pit expansion, the parties disputed whether an issue concerning the 2019 Growth Plan should be included on the Issues List.

The Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations argued the application was substantially changed since 2012 and should be subject to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the aggregate application had been deemed complete in 2012, exempting it from the Growth Plan policies pursuant to section 4.2.8.7.

The Tribunal struck the disputed issue from the Issues List and scheduled an 11-day hearing.

In a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) issued to an aggregate pit operator, the Tribunal determined the final Issues List.

The appellants sought to include issues relating to aggregate washing, settlement ponds, and groundwater quality impacts from those processes.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider aggregate washing and related sewage works in a PTTW appeal, as those matters are governed by a separate Environmental Compliance Approval process under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Tribunal struck or amended the disputed issues to ensure they strictly related to the taking of water, rather than its subsequent treatment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and an aggregate licence referral, to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The municipality advised it had resolved its concerns and withdrew as a party.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 9, 2022, to finalize the issues list, and set a 13-day hearing on the merits commencing January 31, 2023.

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. for quarry dewatering.

CAMQ challenged Condition 3.5 of the permit, which regulated water taking during low-water advisories, arguing it was unreasonable and could cause significant environmental harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while CAMQ had standing to seek leave, it failed to meet the two-part test for leave to appeal under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director acted reasonably, considered relevant policies including the ecosystem approach and cumulative effects, and that there was no evidence the permit would result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, environmental advocacy organizations, brought applications for judicial review challenging the failure of various Ontario Ministers to conduct public consultations under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) before enacting the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

The applicants argued that the Ministers acted unreasonably by failing to post proposed amendments to several statutes on the Environmental Registry.

The Divisional Court dismissed most of the challenges, finding the Ministers' decisions reasonable or shielded by retroactive legislation.

However, the court granted the application in part, issuing a declaration that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted unreasonably and unlawfully by failing to post proposed amendments respecting Ministerial Zoning Orders under the Planning Act prior to implementation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Permit to Take Water issued for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The parties could not agree on a joint Issues List, with the Director objecting to issues relating to sewage works and the characterization of water resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange written positions to finalize the Issues List and declined to schedule the hearing until the Procedural Order and Issues List are resolved.

The instrument holder brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Permit to Take Water issued by the Director, which had been appealed by the appellants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement to lift the stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond water levels, berm inspections, water quality monitoring, and well sampling for residents.

The Tribunal found that the proposed conditions addressed the public interest considerations under s. 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act and would not result in danger to health, impairment of waters, or injury to property or the environment.

The motion to lift the automatic stay was granted on consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

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 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.

This decision addresses motions for leave to intervene and to file records in a constitutional reference concerning the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to twelve parties, including three Attorneys General as of right and nine additional parties seeking discretionary leave.

The judge declined to grant leave to one individual applicant.

The decision also addresses the scope of factums, oral argument time allocation, and the relaxed approach to supplementing the record in constitutional references as a court of first instance.

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 appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the permit holder for dewatering a limestone quarry.

The appellant argued the supporting documentation was inadequate, the terms did not safeguard public interests, and the permit holder had a history of non-compliance.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while recent structural geology investigations and monitoring data adequately addressed hydrogeological uncertainties, the PTTW required amendments.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the permitted water taking volume, enhanced groundwater monitoring, the implementation of water conservation measures, and the addition of specific triggers and compliance mechanisms to the contingency plan.