Justin Jacob

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 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 appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement a remedial action plan to address diesel contamination originating from a concrete batch plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement requiring the installation of a barrier wall, additional groundwater monitoring, and financial assurance.

The Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement under Rule 201 of its Rules of Practice, found the agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act to protect the natural environment, and dismissed the appeals, directing the Director to amend the order accordingly.

The applicants sought leave to appeal their convictions under the Environmental Protection Act following a 14-day trial and a subsequent appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicants were convicted of nine provincial offences related to discharging contaminants into the environment and failing to comply with lawful orders issued following catastrophic propane explosions at their facility that killed one employee and displaced approximately 12,000 residents.

The Court of Appeal considered whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, which requires identification of a pure question of law that is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The court found that the two grounds of appeal raised by the applicants were fact-laden and did not identify pure questions of law transcending the unique factual circumstances of the case.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the processing of agricultural material at a site in Kingsville.

The parties reached a settlement and proposed Minutes of Settlement to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed the appeals, and directed the Director to issue an amended order pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant, Nagata Auto Parts Canada Co., Ltd., sought to withdraw its appeal of a Director's Order regarding groundwater contamination at sites in Middlesex County.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the appellant reached a settlement, and a new Provincial Officer's Order was issued requiring risk management and monitoring measures.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the proposed withdrawal consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the withdrawal, and dismissed the appeal.

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Nortel and Nagata appealed a Director's Order requiring work to be done at a contaminated site.

Nortel, under CCAA protection, reached a settlement with the MOECC to pay approximately $3,000,000 to address outstanding environmental issues.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of Nortel's appeal and the revocation of the Director's Order against Nortel, finding the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties requested a further continuation of a previously granted stay of portions of the Director's Order, on consent, to allow time to finalize a detailed work plan.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay until March 28, 2018.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple regulatory offences under the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a massive propane explosion at their facility that resulted in a worker's death and widespread environmental contamination.

The appellants argued the trial judge made numerous factual and legal errors, including rejecting their defence of officially induced error and finding a lack of due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of strict liability principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding over $5 million in fines due to the unprecedented magnitude of the damage and the appellants' reckless conduct.

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

The parties had been working on a conceptual site model and requested more time to finalize it.

The Director consented to the request.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until December 28, 2017.

The Appellant, an auto wrecking business, appealed a Director's Order requiring the design and implementation of a storm water management system following a petroleum spill into a nearby creek.

During the protracted pre-hearing process, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) requested and was granted participant status due to its mandate to protect the affected watershed and its status as a downstream property owner.

The Tribunal documented the extensive history of the pre-hearing process, which involved 22 status updates over three years, and adjourned the preliminary hearing to allow the parties to continue developing the required storm water management plan.

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 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 requiring them to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for air discharges at an agricultural material processing site.

The appellants brought a motion seeking a stay of Item 3 of the order pending the disposition of their appeals.

The Director consented to the stay without condition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar to granting the stay and granted the motion on consent.

The City of London appealed a condition in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring annual water quality monitoring of the Thames River using the BioMAP method.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the condition, making the monitoring time-limited to five years and requiring sampling every other year.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to meet sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements for a sewage disposal system at a mobile home park.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement extending the compliance deadlines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the environmental protection objectives of the legislation, accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the Director to amend the order accordingly.

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 appellants appealed an order from the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring an environmental investigation programme at a former dry cleaning facility.

After complying with the order, the appellants proposed to withdraw their appeals.

The Director and the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury consented.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals and dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.