Joseph F. Castrilli

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. for quarry dewatering.

CAMQ challenged Condition 3.5 of the permit, which regulated water taking during low-water advisories, arguing it was unreasonable and could cause significant environmental harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while CAMQ had standing to seek leave, it failed to meet the two-part test for leave to appeal under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director acted reasonably, considered relevant policies including the ecosystem approach and cumulative effects, and that there was no evidence the permit would result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicants, environmental advocacy organizations, brought applications for judicial review challenging the failure of various Ontario Ministers to conduct public consultations under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) before enacting the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

The applicants argued that the Ministers acted unreasonably by failing to post proposed amendments to several statutes on the Environmental Registry.

The Divisional Court dismissed most of the challenges, finding the Ministers' decisions reasonable or shielded by retroactive legislation.

However, the court granted the application in part, issuing a declaration that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted unreasonably and unlawfully by failing to post proposed amendments respecting Ministerial Zoning Orders under the Planning Act prior to implementation.

This decision addresses motions for leave to intervene and to file records in a constitutional reference concerning the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

The motion judge granted leave to intervene to twelve parties, including three Attorneys General as of right and nine additional parties seeking discretionary leave.

The judge declined to grant leave to one individual applicant.

The decision also addresses the scope of factums, oral argument time allocation, and the relaxed approach to supplementing the record in constitutional references as a court of first instance.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the permit holder for dewatering a limestone quarry.

The appellant argued the supporting documentation was inadequate, the terms did not safeguard public interests, and the permit holder had a history of non-compliance.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while recent structural geology investigations and monitoring data adequately addressed hydrogeological uncertainties, the PTTW required amendments.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the permitted water taking volume, enhanced groundwater monitoring, the implementation of water conservation measures, and the addition of specific triggers and compliance mechanisms to the contingency plan.

The appellant appealed a Permit to Take Water issued to the instrument holder for quarry dewatering.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered amendments to the permit.

The amendments included reduced daily water taking limits, enhanced groundwater monitoring requirements, and the implementation of a contingency plan with specific trigger events.

The Permit Holder brought a motion to amend an earlier Tribunal order that partially lifted an automatic stay on a Permit to Take Water for a quarry.

The Permit Holder sought to extend the dewatering period from 10 to 30 days, citing a larger than expected volume of accumulated spring melt water and precipitation.

The Appellant opposed the extension, raising concerns about potential environmental impacts and questioning the Permit Holder's claims of irreparable harm.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test and section 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Tribunal found that the Permit Holder would suffer irreparable harm if unable to access the quarry floor, and that a short-term extension would not pose a serious risk of environmental impairment.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion, extending the stay lift for an additional 10 days to allow the removal of up to 23 million litres of water, subject to strict monitoring and contingency conditions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

On a judicial review application, certain respondents moved to strike an exhibit to an affidavit submitted by the Ministry of the Environment.

The exhibit, which detailed a delegation of authority under the Environmental Bill of Rights, was tendered to show that the Minister's obligations had not been delegated.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and struck the exhibit, holding that it was not part of the record before the tribunal and that the rare circumstances permitting the supplementation of the record on judicial review, such as showing jurisdictional error, did not apply.

The moving party brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a previous decision refusing leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application involved certificates of approval granted under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Court treated the motion as a hearing de novo due to the moving party refining his position.

Finding that the case engaged matters of public concern and that the moving party had special knowledge and expertise regarding the statement of environmental values, the Court granted leave to intervene.

The Industry Coalition for Environmental Fairness Inc. (ICEF) and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision.

The underlying judicial review concerned the test for leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights regarding certificates of approval issued to a cement company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that ICEF lacked a direct interest and would not make a useful contribution without causing delay, and that the Environmental Commissioner's proposed intervention would not provide a different perspective from the existing parties and would likely prejudice them.