7 total
Defendant fined $185,000 for diesel fuel spill into Lake Simcoe following guilty plea.
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.
Tribunal schedules motion to stay appeals of municipal order to pay costs pending civil litigation.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Municipal Order to Pay Costs issued by the Regional Municipality of Peel.
The order relates to spills from underground storage tanks at a gas station.
The appellants requested a motion to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of a related civil matter in the Ontario Superior Court.
The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing for October 10, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for December 8, 2025.
Settlement approved amending Director's Order to establish tiered monthly leachate disposal requirements for hazardous waste facility.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order prescribing actions to dispose, manage, and reduce leachate from its hazardous waste management facility.
The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Order to require specific monthly leachate disposal volumes based on the site's estimated leachate volume, and to incorporate these requirements into an updated Design and Operations Plan.
The Tribunal found the settlement to be protective of the environment and in the public interest, approved the Minutes of Settlement, and directed the Director to amend the Order accordingly.
Adjournment granted to allow parties to finalize settlement agreement regarding leachate disposal order.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the disposal of leachate and submission of an abatement plan under the Environmental Protection Act.
At the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached but the agreement was still being drafted.
The parties requested an adjournment to finalize the settlement documents.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a new video hearing date.
The Court of Appeal affirmed that lien claimants' priority over building mortgages is limited to a single 10 percent holdback deficiency regardless of the number of mortgages.
The appellants, lien claimants in a condominium development bankruptcy, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the quantum of their priority under section 78(2) of the Construction Act.
They argued for a 20% priority due to two building mortgages, while the receiver contended it was a single 10% holdback deficiency.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the statutory interpretation issue important.
On the merits, the Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation, affirming that the priority is limited to the single 10% holdback deficiency, regardless of the number of building mortgages.
The appeal was dismissed.
Lien claimants' priority for holdback deficiency under s. 78(2) applies once over all building mortgages combined.
Three lien claimants brought a motion in a receivership proceeding to determine the proper interpretation of s. 78(2) of the Construction Act regarding priority over building mortgages.
The claimants argued they were entitled to priority for the holdback deficiency against each building mortgage individually, effectively multiplying their priority amount.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that the lien claimants' priority is limited to the extent of the single deficiency in the owner's holdback over all building mortgages combined, as multiplying the priority would be contrary to the statutory scheme and unfairly prejudice subsequent encumbrancers.
CCAA Plan of Arrangement sanctioned as fair and reasonable, including third-party releases and DIP charge increase.
The Applicants, part of the Lydian Group which owns a development-stage gold mine in Armenia, sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.
The Plan, supported by the Monitor and the requisite majority of secured creditors, provides for the privatization of the Lydian Group and the release of existing indebtedness to Senior Lenders.
The court found the Plan to be fair and reasonable, noting that while equity claimants would receive no compensation, this reflected the economic reality of the insolvency.
The court also approved third-party releases, an increase to the DIP charge, an extension of the stay period, a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, and the Monitor's activities and fees.
