Jennifer Fairfax

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and implementation of a closure plan for the Margach Waste Disposal Site and the provision of financial assurance.

The parties reached a settlement in principle and requested a settlement hearing.

The settlement provided an 18-month period to facilitate the sale of the site to a potential purchaser, during which the appellants would continue maintenance and monitoring.

If sold, the purchaser would assume responsibility and provide financial assurance; if not, the appellants would implement a closure plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, directed the Director to revoke the Order, and dismissed the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring maintenance, monitoring, and financial assurance for a closed waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving a comprehensive work plan, increased financial assurance of $1,000,000, and the release of former corporate directors from liability.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the Director's Order and dismissed the proceedings.

The appellant, Halton Hills Hydro Inc., appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board refusing a discretionary rate adjustment for operation, maintenance, and administration costs of a new transformer station between five-year rate-setting intervals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the Board's conclusion that the requested costs were not sufficiently material to justify an exception to its general policy.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted further adjournments of three inter-related appeals concerning Director's Orders for three waste disposal sites in northern Ontario.

The adjournments were granted to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and await the outcome of related civil proceedings regarding an indemnity agreement.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim to add a claim in nuisance against the respondent for failing to properly remediate contaminated land before selling it.

The motion judge denied the amendment, finding that a nuisance claim requires the interference to originate from outside the plaintiff's land.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that an essential characteristic of the tort of nuisance is that the alleged nuisance must emanate from somewhere other than the plaintiff's own land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion seeking leave to file seven reply affidavits in an application for judicial review concerning a decision to allow increased sulphur production at a Suncor refinery.

The respondents objected to the vast majority of the proposed reply evidence on grounds including improper case-splitting, irrelevance, and that the evidence was available earlier.

The court held that a less strict standard for reply evidence applies on an application prior to cross-examinations than at trial.

Applying this standard, the court permitted most of the reply evidence, striking only portions that were purely confirmatory, raised new issues that should have been in the main case, or repeated earlier evidence verbatim.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Ministry of the Environment decision approving an increase in sulphur production at a Suncor refinery, arguing the failure to conduct a cumulative effects assessment violated their Charter rights.

The respondents brought motions to strike the application as a collateral attack on prior approvals and to strike much of the applicants' affidavit evidence.

The applicants brought a cross-motion for a protective costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike the application, finding it was not plain and obvious it would fail.

The court allowed the motion to strike evidence in part, striking improper expert opinion and unattributed hearsay, but leaving relevance determinations to the hearing panel.

The motion for a protective costs order was dismissed, as the applicants had pro bono representation and the narrow administrative issue did not meet the exceptional public importance threshold.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a Master's decision ordering them to answer certain discovery questions.

The plaintiff, a former CEO of Symcor, claimed a 10% equity interest based on his employment agreement.

The defendants argued the agreement was unenforceable.

During discovery, the defendants refused to answer questions regarding the drafting of a subsequent shareholders' agreement, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Master ordered the questions answered, finding no privilege or that privilege was waived.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal for Symcor regarding certain questions, finding good reason to doubt the Master's decision on privilege, but denied leave for the Banks and other questions.