12 total
Tribunal ordered two aggregate licence transfer proceedings to be heard by a common panel.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a concurrent Case Management Conference for two separate proceedings concerning the transfer of aggregate licences under the Aggregate Resources Act.
The Tribunal determined that, due to common jurisdictional and legal issues regarding financial compensation for licence transfers, both proceedings should be heard by a common panel to avoid inconsistent findings.
The Tribunal issued procedural orders and scheduled the hearings for November 2023 and February 2024.
Appeal of Tribunal's preliminary jurisdictional ruling on aggregate licence compensation dismissed as premature.
The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.
The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.
The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.
The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.
Parties directed to submit a hearing plan ahead of the scheduled hearing for a quarry application.
This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.
Contempt motion dismissed as defendants made genuine efforts to obtain permits to remove nuisance dock.
The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered in a previous trial judgment.
The court heard evidence from a Ministry of Natural Resources official regarding the defendants' efforts to obtain the necessary work permits for the removal.
The court found that the defendants were making genuine efforts to comply with the judgment and navigate the regulatory requirements, and therefore dismissed the contempt motion, ordering the defendants to continue using best efforts to remedy the nuisance.
Costs awarded against a party who intentionally contaminated a monitoring well to manipulate environmental sampling.
The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.
The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.
The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.
The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.
Appeal dismissed after Director revoked the remediation order due to evidence of third-party well tampering.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact from a 1990 spill on his property.
The Director subsequently revoked the order after receiving evidence that a third party had tampered with a neighbouring well by adding fuel oil, invalidating the samples, and that there was no credible evidence linking the 1990 spill to the current contamination.
The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the appeal.
Hearing adjourned to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.
The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.
The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.
Hearing regarding environmental remediation order adjourned to September 2016 at Director's request.
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order issued under the Environmental Protection Act for the assessment and remediation of a petroleum spill.
The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the request, vacating the April 2016 hearing dates and adjourning the matter to September 2016.
Adjournment granted to allow parties to review new hydrogeological evidence regarding the source of contamination.
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a remediation order.
The Director sought the adjournment because new hydrogeological reports cast doubt on the assumption that a spill on the appellant's property caused the contamination on a neighbouring property.
The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties opposed it.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing given the new scientific evidence.
Hearing adjourned to November 9, 2015 at the request of the Director.
The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order to retain a consultant for petroleum spill remediation.
The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a teleconference for November 9, 2015, with reasons to follow.
Tribunal finalized the issues list for an appeal of a groundwater remediation order.
The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the retention of a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impacts on groundwater from a 1990 spill.
Following a preliminary hearing to establish the issues list, several added parties requested the inclusion of new issues.
The Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of the proposed issues, finding no reason to depart from its previous order, but amended one issue regarding the supplier of lake-based water.
The Tribunal also clarified that jurisdictional arguments regarding the addition of another party to the Order were not precluded.
Tribunal clarifies scope of appeal and issues list for hearing regarding a 1990 fuel oil spill.
The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact on groundwater from a 1990 fuel oil spill on his cottage property.
Following a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order clarifying the scope of the appeal and organizing the issues to be determined at the hearing.
The Tribunal identified seven main issues within the scope of the appeal and excluded issues related to remedy or expanding the Director's Order.
