4 total
Tribunal approves settlement granting a strict, two-year environmental compliance approval for a sewage disposal site.
The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to issue an environmental compliance approval for a hauled sewage disposal site.
The parties reached a settlement agreement that included a draft amended approval with stringent conditions, a two-year expiry date, and an action plan for environmental monitoring.
The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directing the issuance of the amended approval and dismissing the appeal.
Tribunal scheduled a hearing to review a proposed settlement regarding a hauled sewage disposal site.
The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage disposal site.
Following mediation, the parties reached a tentative settlement.
The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a one-day hearing to review the settlement agreement and hear from participants, and set deadlines for filing materials.
Injunction and finding of access road set aside; contempt finding for breaching interim orders upheld.
The respondents sought a declaration that a route across the appellant's land was an access road under the Road Access Act.
The trial judge found an access road existed and granted an injunction allowing the respondents access.
The trial judge also found the appellant in contempt for breaching interim orders.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the injunction because it was not properly before the trial judge, and set aside the finding that an access road existed because the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence of overgrowth and the respondents' actions in clearing the route.
The matter was remitted for re-determination.
The finding of contempt was upheld.
Costs denied to successful respondents due to public interest nature of application and failure to negotiate.
The respondents sought costs of $30,497.12 after successfully defending an application brought by the self-represented applicant.
The applicant argued that no costs should be payable because the application raised an important public issue regarding the electoral system and the respondents had failed to respond to settlement offers.
The court declined to award costs to the respondents, finding that the application was necessary despite being unsuccessful, and noting the respondents' failure to engage in settlement discussions.
