Isabelle O’Connor

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Permit to Take Water issued for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The parties could not agree on a joint Issues List, with the Director objecting to issues relating to sewage works and the characterization of water resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange written positions to finalize the Issues List and declined to schedule the hearing until the Procedural Order and Issues List are resolved.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

Tamlann Investments Inc., a former owner of the subject lands and an orderee, was granted party status over the appellant's objection.

Erectoweld Limited, a neighbouring property owner, was granted participant status on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day hearing.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an amended permit to take water to the instrument holder for quarry operations.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement that did not require any changes to the permit, and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding as the appeal was withdrawn on consent without altering the decision under appeal.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take steps regarding street sweepings delivered to various properties.

The parties reached a proposed settlement agreement with a Terms of Reference for assessing and addressing contaminants, but the appellant would not withdraw its appeal until the measures were completed.

The Tribunal declined to approve the Proposed Minutes of Settlement as a partial settlement is not contemplated by its Rules of Practice, but accepted the process and adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to carry out the work.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties.

The appellants requested a continuation of a previously granted stay of certain portions of the Director's Order while they finalized a conceptual site model and work plan.

The Director consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct a vapour intrusion assessment program at residential properties adjacent to their industrial facility.

After complying with the order and conducting the required sampling, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

With the consent of the Director and no objection from the presenter, the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

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 brought a motion to waive the requirements for giving notice to nearby property owners and holding a pre-hearing conference prior to the Tribunal considering a proposed settlement of its appeal regarding a waste disposal site.

The appellant and the Director argued that notice was unnecessary as the appeal was being withdrawn and the issues were regulatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has jurisdiction to convene a pre-hearing conference to consider status requests before reviewing a settlement, and that waiving notice requirements was inappropriate given the public interest mandate of the environmental legislation.

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 requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request while the parties worked to finalize a conceptual site model.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until October 27, 2017.

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 appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order relating to environmental contamination on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request to allow the parties time to finalize a conceptual site model and prepare for carrying out the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until September 28, 2017.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

The appellant appealed the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval for the installation of vertical closed loop ground source heat pumps.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included an amended approval and workplan with enhanced training, oversight, and reporting requirements.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal on consent.