Marlene Cashin

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish existing structures and construct a large single dwelling on a property designated as Escarpment Protection Area.

The appellant argued the proposed development's size and visual impact would negatively affect the open landscape character and scenic resources of the area.

The Hearing Officer accepted the expert evidence of the applicant and the Commission that the proposed development is a permitted use and accords with the relevant objectives and development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit to demolish accessory structures and construct a single dwelling and detached garage.

The refusal was based on non-compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae due to an adjacent chicken farm.

The Hearing Officers found that while the application did not meet the strict MDS setback, a minor variance was available and appropriate in the specific circumstances, given the lack of alternative locations, the required environmental setback, and proposed odour mitigation measures.

The Minister approved the development permit subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to pay $207,477.88 for remedial work related to a spill.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange relevant documents by specified dates and directed them to advise if they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval for a 12-month pilot program to process municipal de-watered biosolids.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to the proximity of residential dwellings, cumulative impacts, the operator's track record, and potential health risks.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, as the Director's decision was reasonable and included appropriate conditions to mitigate environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants brought a motion for an order requiring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to disclose all records relating to an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the request was a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the documents were likely relevant to the appellants' grounds for appeal regarding whether pre-existing septic systems were properly decommissioned.

The motion for disclosure was granted.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks proposed to revoke a 2011 Director's Order against several appellants regarding the decommissioning of a waste disposal site and sewage works at a former paper mill.

The Tribunal found the revocation to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as the majority of the required environmental work had been completed by another party, sufficient financial assurance was held for the remaining work, and one of the appellants had passed away.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the order and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take steps regarding street sweepings delivered to various properties.

The parties reached a proposed settlement agreement with a Terms of Reference for assessing and addressing contaminants, but the appellant would not withdraw its appeal until the measures were completed.

The Tribunal declined to approve the Proposed Minutes of Settlement as a partial settlement is not contemplated by its Rules of Practice, but accepted the process and adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to carry out the work.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan.

During a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed that mediation would not be helpful due to a dispute over statutory interpretation.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The City of Thunder Bay appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the Boulevard Lake Dam.

The parties reached a settlement to revise the permit to reflect the closure of a hydroelectric facility and clarify that water taking is for recreational and conservation uses only.

The Tribunal granted Presenter status to the North Shore Steelhead Association, who opposed the settlement seeking specific fishery objectives.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the revisions consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to demolish a chalet and construct a new dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the building materials, landscaping, and grading to reduce visual impacts.

The Hearing Officers reviewed the revised conditions of approval, found them to be in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and confirmed the Commission's decision as modified by the settlement.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office held a pre-hearing conference regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to change the designation of properties on Dyer's Bay Road.

The Hearing Officers determined the applicable rules of procedure, granted party status to the Dyer's Bay Association and a property owner, and granted participant status to four individuals.

A schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing was established.

The appellant snowmobile club appealed the refusal of a development permit to install a culvert for a snowmobile trail.

A party to the proceeding brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the issue of whether the trail was an 'existing use' had already been decided by the tribunal in 2006.

The tribunal applied the doctrine of issue estoppel, finding that the parties and issues were identical to the previous proceeding and that the appellant could not re-litigate the matter with evidence that could have been raised earlier.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to provide supporting information related to two discharges.

The Appellants brought a motion requesting a stay of the Director's Order pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal refused the request for a stay and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

In an appeal of a development permit approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the appellants requested that the hearing be held in Toronto and that the Hearing Officer conduct a site visit.

The Hearing Officer denied the request to hold the hearing in Toronto, ordering it to be held in Thornbury near the subject property in accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice.

The request for a site visit was granted, as it would assist in understanding the evidence regarding the scale of the proposed development and its potential impact on a large oak tree and water flow.

Procedural dates for the hearing were also scheduled.

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 preventative measures order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a steel mill and mining properties owned by an insolvent company.

Following the sale of the company under CCAA proceedings and the execution of agreements to fund and implement environmental action plans, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to revoke the order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a greenhouse and herb operation.

At a pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner requested party status, citing concerns about potential cannabis cultivation and light pollution.

The Hearing Officers granted the neighbour party status, finding he had a genuine, direct, and substantial interest in the application and appeal.

A procedural schedule was also established for the upcoming hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals of a development permit approval, several individuals requested party and participant status.

The Hearing Officer granted party status to two neighbours whose interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, and participant status to the past president of the condominium corporation who could provide relevant context.

The matter was adjourned to allow for settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring source testing for fluorides and particulate matter.

After an interim stay and mediation, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of the Rules of Practice.

The appellant, a condominium unit owner, sought to appeal the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for another unit within the same condominium corporation.

The appellant had not received notice of the decision from the Commission.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the appeal, finding that the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office lacks jurisdiction to extend a right of appeal to a person who was not entitled to receive notice under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.