3 total
Case Management Conference adjourned due to Approval Holder's failure to properly serve notice to nearby property owners.
The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal of an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for the Niagara Region Wind Farm.
The Approval Holder failed to serve the Notice of CMC to all assessed property owners within 550 metres of the project location by the required methods at least 15 days prior to the CMC.
Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC and directed the Approval Holder to properly serve the notice.
Motions to dismiss filed by the Approval Holder and the Director will be heard at the rescheduled CMC.
Application for judicial review dismissed as permit applications for existing dams did not trigger duty to consult.
The applicant First Nation brought an application for judicial review alleging that the Crown's failure to decide applications for Permits to Take Water (PTTW) for existing hydroelectric dams breached the duty to consult and accommodate.
The Crown subsequently amended the Ontario Water Resources Act to exempt the dams from the PTTW requirement, as they were already regulated under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the PTTW applications did not trigger the duty to consult because they sought only to continue historical operations without introducing novel adverse impacts.
Furthermore, the legislative amendments were not unconstitutional as they did not remove the sole trigger for consultation, which remained available under the overlapping regulatory regime.
Oppression action dismissed on summary judgment as the amalgamated plaintiff could not meet co-operative membership criteria.
The plaintiff, a corporate successor to a former member of the defendant co-operative, brought an oppression action seeking solely re-admission as a member.
The defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court found that the plaintiff, having voluntarily amalgamated, no longer existed as a co-operative and could not meet the membership criteria.
The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that it could conditionally re-organize if granted the remedy, holding that litigation is not a 'dry run.' The action was dismissed, and the court noted that naming the personal defendants was an abuse of process given the limited relief sought.
Costs of $300,000 were awarded to the defendants.
