Joseph F. Castrilli

The appellant appealed a Permit to Take Water issued to the instrument holder for quarry dewatering.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered amendments to the permit.

The amendments included reduced daily water taking limits, enhanced groundwater monitoring requirements, and the implementation of a contingency plan with specific trigger events.

The Permit Holder brought a motion to amend an earlier Tribunal order that partially lifted an automatic stay on a Permit to Take Water for a quarry.

The Permit Holder sought to extend the dewatering period from 10 to 30 days, citing a larger than expected volume of accumulated spring melt water and precipitation.

The Appellant opposed the extension, raising concerns about potential environmental impacts and questioning the Permit Holder's claims of irreparable harm.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test and section 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Tribunal found that the Permit Holder would suffer irreparable harm if unable to access the quarry floor, and that a short-term extension would not pose a serious risk of environmental impairment.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion, extending the stay lift for an additional 10 days to allow the removal of up to 23 million litres of water, subject to strict monitoring and contingency conditions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

On a judicial review application, certain respondents moved to strike an exhibit to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

The exhibit, which detailed a delegation of authority under the Environmental Bill of Rights, was tendered to show that the Minister's obligations had not been delegated.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the exhibit, holding that it was not part of the record before the tribunal and that the rare circumstances permitting the supplementation of the record on judicial review, such as showing jurisdictional error, did not apply.

The moving party brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a previous decision refusing leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application involved certificates of approval granted under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Court treated the motion as a hearing de novo due to the moving party refining his position.

Finding that the case engaged matters of public concern and that the moving party had special knowledge and expertise regarding the statement of environmental values, the Court granted leave to intervene.

The Industry Coalition for Environmental Fairness Inc. (ICEF) and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision.

The underlying judicial review concerned the test for leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights regarding certificates of approval issued to a cement company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that ICEF lacked a direct interest and would not make a useful contribution without causing delay, and that the Environmental Commissioner's proposed intervention would not provide a different perspective from the existing parties and would likely prejudice them.