Marlene Cashin

At a pre-hearing conference for an appeal of a development permit approval, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake requested participant status.

The parties consented to the request.

The Hearing Panel granted the Town participant status, allowing it to receive documents and participate in settlement discussions.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to ensure proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

After several adjournments to allow the appellant to complete the required work, the Director was satisfied that the appellant had complied with the substance of the order.

The appellant subsequently withdrew its appeal on consent.

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

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit recognizing the demolition of a storage barn.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised concerns regarding environmental contamination and heritage value, and requested additional conditions.

Noting that the appellant had not received all relevant documents, the Hearing Panel ordered the parties to exchange documents and scheduled a further teleconference to identify remaining issues and set hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application to convert a barn into a commercial rental facility for weddings.

Following several adjournments to allow the applicant to pursue an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the applicant decided not to pursue the amendment.

The Hearing Panel held a pre-hearing conference call and issued an order setting the procedural schedule and dates for the hearing of the appeal.

The appellant appealed conditions of a Permit to Take Water requiring the installation of a nested bedrock monitoring well.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo requested participant status, arguing it had an interest in monitoring the aquifer which serves as its source of drinking water.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Region on consent and set a schedule for document disclosure and mediation.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties agreed that additional time was needed to complete on-site work to achieve full compliance.

The Tribunal found that the statutory prohibitions against granting a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The continuation of the stay was granted on consent until November 17, 2017.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a barn, storage facilities, and other structures.

Two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants failed to appear at the peremptory pre-hearing conference.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the appeals under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Rules and confirmed the Commission's decision pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office held a series of pre-hearing conferences regarding appeals of a development permit approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The permit allowed the applicant to construct agricultural and retail structures on a property in the Escarpment Protection Area.

Following several teleconferences where settlement discussions and revised site plans were considered, the Hearing Officers issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document disclosure, issues lists, and the final hearing dates.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties consented to the stay to allow for further on-site work and review by the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and (3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay and granted the continuation on consent until September 30, 2017.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

The Director consented to the stay to allow for the review of a recently prepared report.

The Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay, as the order did not require monitoring, recording, or reporting, and the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicants to construct a new dwelling, a greenhouse, and a small-scale commercial use accessory to agriculture (a Community Supported Agriculture operation) on their property.

The appellants argued the commercial use was not permitted in an Escarpment Protection Area and raised traffic safety concerns.

The Hearing Panel found that the proposed development is a permitted use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan and satisfies the relevant development criteria.

The Panel also found no evidence of traffic safety issues given the low volume of vehicles anticipated.

The appeals were dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The appellant requested a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to establish proper cover over buried fibreglass waste on its property.

The stay was requested on consent to allow the parties additional time for investigations and negotiations to resolve the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the order was not an order to monitor, record or report under s. 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, and that a brief stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3).

The Tribunal granted the consent stay until July 31, 2017.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that varied the compliance dates for the removal of the waste ash and required interim monitoring and capping.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the amendment of the Director's Order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to install lighting on cross-country ski trails.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the conditions of approval to restrict the time and activities for which lighting could be used.

The Hearing Officer approved the settlement, finding the revised conditions addressed the appellant's concerns and were in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and confirmed the decision to issue the permit with the revised conditions.

The appellant municipality appealed three Provincial Officer's Orders requiring it to address nuisance bears at three waste disposal sites.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement based on an Action Plan developed by the municipality.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the revocation of the orders, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicants to demolish an existing garage and construct a 1.5-storey detached garage with a storage loft.

The appellants argued the new garage would negatively impact their view and conflict with the Escarpment Rural Area objectives.

The Hearing Officers found that the proposed development was a permitted use, met the development criteria, and would not have a substantial negative impact on the visual attractiveness of the area, as visual impact is assessed from the public viewshed rather than private properties.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing to allow for a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment application to be processed.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Panel granted the adjournment, finding it reasonable as the amendment application was closely related to the current appeal, and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to a hydroelectric station on the Mississippi River.

The applicants raised concerns regarding water levels, endangered species habitat, and conflict with a water management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that both applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants failed to establish under the first branch of the test in s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights that no reasonable person could have made the decision to issue the permit.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct a sideroad from seasonal to year-round use.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Township of Clearview requested a six-month adjournment because the proposed road work would encroach into wetland areas, requiring an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officers granted the adjournment and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates to allow the amendment process to take place.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing garage and construct a new detached garage with a storage loft.

During a pre-hearing conference, a neighbour requested presenter status to raise concerns about visual impacts, and the applicants requested a site visit.

The Hearing Panel granted both requests on consent and issued procedural directions for the hearing.