Karen Kraft Sloan

Following a hearing regarding a development permit for water-skiing competitions, three parties brought applications for costs.

The applicant company sought costs against the Town of Mono, alleging unreasonable conduct and bad faith.

The Town and a citizens' coalition sought costs against the company, citing a frivolous post-hearing motion and disrespectful conduct.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the company's application, finding the Town's conduct was reasonable and in good faith.

The Hearing Officers granted the Town's and the coalition's applications in part, finding the company's post-hearing motion was unreasonable and frivolous.

The company was ordered to pay $2,000 to the Town and $500 to the coalition.

The applicant applied for a development permit to construct a single dwelling, driveway, septic system, and connection to an existing well.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approved the application.

The appellants appealed the decision, raising concerns about the well and vegetation.

Following discussions, the applicant agreed to drill a new well, decommission the existing well, and relocate the hydro service.

The appellants subsequently withdrew their appeals.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the appeals and confirmed the Commission's decision.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission approved a development permit for 2222699 Ontario Inc. to host water-skiing competitions on a pond in a former gravel pit.

Several neighbours, the Town of Mono, and the applicant appealed the decision.

The Hearing Officers found that the originally approved development of four 2.5-day events was too intensive and not a permitted use in the Escarpment Protection Area.

However, they recommended approval of a redefined proposal for two events per year with a maximum of 40 competitors, subject to strict conditions including a three-year review period, noise controls, and a fuel contingency plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry accepted the recommendation and directed the issuance of the modified permit.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

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

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding waste street sweepings under the Environmental Protection Act.

Following an agreement between the parties, the Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the Director to amend the Order to reflect new completion dates for specific work items.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take various actions regarding street sweepings delivered to private properties between 2004 and 2011.

The City sought a stay of the Order pending the appeal.

The Director consented to a stay of the items requiring physical investigations and remedial work, but opposed staying the items requiring the City to share information and conduct a forensic audit to identify affected properties.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found no statutory bar to a stay and a serious issue to be tried.

However, the Tribunal held the City failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its reputation or from potential litigation.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience and public interest favoured denying the stay for the disputed items to ensure affected property owners receive proper notice and information.

The stay was granted in part on consent and dismissed for the disputed items.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order regarding waste street sweepings and sought an interim stay pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The Director consented to the interim stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar under sections 143(2) or 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the interim stay on consent.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him and others to complete work regarding an oil spill in a storm sewer outfall.

After the required work was completed to the Director's satisfaction, the Director proposed to revoke the order.

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

The Director's Order was revoked against the appellant, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to recover over $3.6 million in cleanup costs related to a spill.

Several named parties appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the Region proposed revoking the order against one appellant whose estate lacked funds, and two other appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Act's purpose and the public interest, and accepted the withdrawal of the remaining appeals, dismissing the proceedings.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of certain provisions of a Director's Order requiring the implementation of a remediation plan for an oil spill.

The respondent consented to the stay because other named orderees were actively complying with the order, meaning the stay would not result in environmental harm under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent pending the disposition of the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a conditionally approved Development Permit that would allow the conversion of a barn into a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appeal failed to disclose a planning justification under s. 25(8.1)(a) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's concerns regarding noise and land use compatibility constituted valid planning justifications that should be tested at a full hearing.

The City of London appealed a condition in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring annual water quality monitoring of the Thames River using the BioMAP method.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the condition, making the monitoring time-limited to five years and requiring sampling every other year.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for upgrades to an existing serviced campground resort.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties resolved their issues and the appellants withdrew their appeals.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the withdrawal of the appeals resulted in the automatic confirmation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to issue the development permit.

During an appeal of an order to pay costs related to the clean-up of an environmental spill, an orderee requested presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the orderee's interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, he has a genuine interest in the subject matter, and he is likely to make a relevant contribution to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application for upgrades to an existing campground resort.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake requested party status and the Niagara Parks Commission requested participant status.

The Hearing Officers granted both requests, finding that the Town had a genuine public interest and could make a relevant contribution, and that the Parks Commission had a genuine public interest.

The pre-hearing conference was adjourned to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.