3 total
Stay of Divisional Court order granted to prevent irreparable harm to endangered turtle habitat pending appeal.
The moving party, Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, sought to stay an order of the Divisional Court that reinstated a renewable energy approval for a wind energy project.
The project overlapped with the habitat of the endangered Blanding's turtle.
The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the proposed appeal raised serious issues of first impression in environmental law.
The Court also found that the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if the habitat was destroyed before the appeal could be heard, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.
The motion for a stay was granted.
Manufacturer breached Farm Implements Act by unreasonably withholding renewal of dealer agreement without proper notice.
The appellant, a farm implement dealer, appealed the non-renewal of its dealer agreement by the respondent manufacturer.
The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the Farm Implements Act and Ontario Regulation 123/06 by failing to provide the required written notice with full reasons and an opportunity to cure before deciding not to renew the agreement.
The Tribunal determined that the regulation applied retrospectively to the existing contract, removing the respondent's unfettered right to not renew.
The Tribunal awarded the appellant damages for loss of profits based on a two-year reasonable notice period and for obsolete assets, totaling $139,846 plus pre-judgment interest.
Appeal of Environmental Review Tribunal decision striking constitutional question and denying public interest standing dismissed.
The Municipality of North Middlesex appealed two decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.
The Tribunal had struck the Municipality's Notice of Constitutional Question and refused to grant it public interest standing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the law, did not err in principle, and provided compelling reasons.
