Kathleen Ann Clements

The defendant pleaded guilty to causing or permitting the discharge of diesel fuel into Lake Simcoe, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act, following an over-fueling incident at its layover facility.

The court accepted a joint submission for a $185,000 fine, considering the defendant's degree of responsibility, prompt remediation efforts, reimbursement of cleanup costs, and extensive corrective measures implemented to prevent future spills.

The applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants had a timely intention to appeal, their explanation for the delay was inadequate, there was continuing prejudice to the public interest due to delayed enforcement of an environmental order, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court emphasized that lack of merit alone can be determinative in such motions.

The Applicants sought an extension of time under s. 5(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act to file an application for judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision, which had dismissed their appeal of a Director's Order regarding environmental contamination.

The Director brought a cross-motion to dismiss the judicial review application for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Applicants' motion and granted the Director's motion, finding that the Applicants failed to establish apparent grounds for relief and that extending the time would cause substantial prejudice to ongoing Provincial Offences Act proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding environmental concerns at a property in Kitchener.

During a Case Management Conference, the appellants sought an oral motion for an interim stay of the order, while the respondent sought to schedule a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to time limitations.

The Tribunal declined to entertain the oral motion for an interim stay and directed the parties to proceed with their respective preliminary motions by way of formal Notice of Motion in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Case Management Conference was adjourned to allow the parties to complete their motions.

The Orderees appealed an order issued by the Director under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction to process the appeal, which was filed on June 25, 2021, well past the 15-day statutory deadline following service of the order on January 28, 2021.

The Orderees argued that an earlier appeal filed on February 7, 2021 was valid and sought to amend it or extend the time for the June appeal.

The Tribunal found it lacked statutory authority to extend the time under s. 141 of the Act because the Orderees had actual notice of the order.

The June 25, 2021 appeal was dismissed for failing to meet statutory requirements, though the Tribunal noted the February 7, 2021 appeals remained separate proceedings to be addressed at a future Case Management Conference.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amended Environmental Compliance Approval permitting a cement manufacturing facility to increase its use of alternative low-carbon fuels from 96 to 400 tonnes per day.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable because it failed to impose stringent emissions standards, lacked comprehensive ambient air monitoring, and failed to properly consider the Ministry's Statement of Environmental Values, including the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The evidence demonstrated the Director relied on comprehensive scientific studies showing the expanded use of alternative fuels would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts and would comply with applicable provincial air standards.

Crown appeal of an acquittal in a provincial offences matter concerning the interpretation of the standard of "reasonable belief" under section 156(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The respondent was charged with hindering or obstructing a provincial officer in the performance of his duties after preventing an inspection of his property where an open fire was burning.

The central issue was whether the provincial officer had the requisite authority to conduct a warrantless inspection based on information received from a bylaw officer regarding smoke and waste disposal on the property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, establishing that "reasonable belief" in the regulatory inspection context is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable grounds" and does not require the application of criminal law standards for assessing informant tips.

The Ministry moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by a Drive Clean facility and its owner.

The applicants sought to review an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of their accreditation and certification for falsifying test results.

The Ministry argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to a mandatory arbitration clause in the Performance Contract.

The court found that while the accreditation process is a licensing system, there was no legislative intent in the Environmental Protection Act to override the mandatory arbitration clause.

The application for judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success and was quashed.