Katie Clements

The appellant, Wessuc Inc., appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease operation of a vehicle and retain a Qualified Person to inspect and repair it for emissions tampering.

Following several prehearing conference calls, the appellant complied with the Order and withdrew its appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The applicant requested a review of a Tribunal decision that denied her application for leave to appeal an amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to an adjacent asphalt plant.

The applicant argued the facility could not comply with section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act and submitted new video evidence of the plant's operations.

The Tribunal found no material error of fact or law in the original leave decision and determined the new videos did not meet the test for admissible new evidence.

The request for review was refused.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to fulfill their disclosure obligations regarding a Director's Order for the removal of waste ash.

The Tribunal found that the Greenpath Parties had not disclosed all relevant documents or made reasonable efforts to obtain them from third parties.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeals at this stage, instead ordering the Greenpath Parties to provide full and complete disclosure by a specified deadline.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a property.

At a preliminary hearing, the appellants sought a stay of the order pending the resolution of the appeals.

The Director consented to a stay of most items in the order, as there was no evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part and also granted participant status to the City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association for the purpose of a forthcoming motion to revoke the order against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following the revocation of a 2013 Director's Order and the dismissal of the related appeal proceeding.

Peel argued the Director's conduct was unreasonable due to delays in issuing a new 2015 Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the Baker standard and found that the Director's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The costs application was dismissed.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to perform work on sewage works.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellants replaced the sewage system under the Ontario Building Code, obtained necessary permits, and removed components from the shore road allowance.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

Prior to the main hearing, the appellant indicated his intention to withdraw the appeal, and the Director did not object.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Regional Municipality of Peel brought a motion to revoke a Director's Order regarding the removal of waste ash from a site, requesting the motion be heard prior to the main appeals.

The City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association sought participant status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted participant status to both entities and ordered that Peel's motion to revoke be heard prior to the hearing of the appeals, subject to a schedule for disclosure.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call and issued an order setting procedural directions and dates for the exchange of documents and witness statements ahead of the main hearing.

The appellants requested a hearing regarding an order requiring them to perform work with respect to sewage at a property.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the hearing and an interim stay of the order to allow the appellants to obtain a building permit for a sewage system from the municipality.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and interim stay on consent, finding that the proposed terms met the statutory requirements and would ensure environmental concerns were addressed on an interim basis.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status from the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and two individuals.

The Tribunal granted the requests subject to general conditions, finding that the applicants had a genuine interest and would make a relevant contribution to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also confirmed procedural directions and the hearing schedule.

The Crown and the Ontario Provincial Police applied for certiorari to quash a provincial court disclosure order requiring production of records related to an Intoxylizer 8000C breath testing device in impaired driving prosecutions.

The lower court had ordered disclosure of calibration, maintenance, usage logs, prior subject test records, and samples of the alcohol standard solution used in breath testing.

The applicants argued the police should have been treated as a third party and given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that the disclosure order conflicted with expert evidence about the relevance of the records.

The court held that the police possessed a direct interest in the records and should have been afforded an opportunity to make submissions on whether the materials constituted third party records.

The order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice for reconsideration of the disclosure regime with participation from the police.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of her gender discrimination complaint had already been dealt with in a prior grievance mediation-arbitration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's brief reasons in the grievance process did not specify whether the discrimination allegations were considered.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Penner, the Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to use the results of the prior proceeding to preclude the human rights claim.