Who is Natalie Smith?

Natalie Smith is an Ontario lawyer with 2 court cases on record from 2013 to 2014.

What courts has Natalie Smith appeared in?

Natalie Smith has appeared in Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, with most appearances at the Court of Appeal.

How many cases has Natalie Smith handled?

Natalie Smith has 2 cases on record from 2013 to 2014.

What judges has Natalie Smith appeared before?

Natalie Smith has most frequently appeared before Justice Robert A. Blair, Justice Susan G. Himel, Justice David R. Aston.

minicounsel

Natalie Smith | Lawyer

Environmental Law

Administrative Law

Natalie Smith

OCA

cases · OCA, ODC

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

2 total

OCACourt of AppealMar 25, 2014

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.

Prince Edward County Field Naturalists v. Ostrander Point GP Inc., 2014 ONCA 227

Applicant Counsel

ODCDivisional CourtSep 13, 2013

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.