Richard D. Lindgren

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot-mix asphalt plant to operate in conjunction with an existing quarry.

The Applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the Director failed to properly consider the Statement of Environmental Values, cumulative effects, common law rights, and applicable guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have made the decision, as the Director appropriately considered the relevant studies, policies, and mitigation measures.

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.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Notice of Suspension of conditions for a waste disposal site, the Tribunal addressed requests for status and scheduled a preliminary motion.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens Against the ED19 Dump for the entire proceeding, including the preliminary motion, finding that the narrow costs rules under the Environmental Protection Act addressed the appellant's concerns about potential costs awards.

Several other individuals and organizations were granted participant or presenter status on consent.

The Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the closure of the Richmond Landfill Site.

The Tribunal considered the final wording of the conditions, rejecting an additional sentence proposed by the appellant regarding the delineation of leachate-impacted groundwater as redundant.

The Tribunal also granted an extension of time for the instrument holder to complete required work.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Director was ordered to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval.

The instrument holder, Waste Management of Canada Corporation, requested an extension of a deadline set out in an interim order regarding an Environmental Compliance Approval for a landfill site.

The extension was needed to complete unanticipated additional drilling and testing for groundwater monitoring wells.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the reasonable explanation and lack of objections from other parties, and ordered the Director to amend the ECA accordingly on an interim basis.

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 Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion for costs in an ongoing environmental appeal.

Due to an objection by Waste Management of Canada Corporation regarding mediation confidentiality, MBQ requested that the motion be deferred until after the main hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered that the motion materials be marked confidential pending the hearing of the motion.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The appellant did not seek costs for either the trial or the appeal.

Consequently, the previous trial costs order was set aside, and the court ordered that no costs be awarded for either the trial or the appeal.

The respondents sued Ontario in negligence after their dairy herd suffered health problems and low milk production, alleging that asphalt and concrete waste deposited on their farm by the Ministry of Transportation in the 1960s contaminated their well water.

The trial judge found Ontario liable and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court held that Ontario did not breach the standard of care because the risk of harm to the cattle from the buried waste was not reasonably foreseeable in the 1960s.

Furthermore, Ontario had no statutory or common law duty to remove the waste or remediate the water, as testing showed the water met the allowable provincial drinking standards.

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.

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.

Following a successful appeal by Canadian Waste Services Inc. and the Minister of the Environment, the Court of Appeal determined the issue of costs.

The Court exercised its discretion to order no costs for either the application in the Divisional Court or the appeal.

The Court reasoned that the case involved a novel and difficult issue of statutory interpretation regarding the 1996 amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, raised issues of public importance, and featured a significant disparity in the financial resources of the parties.

Canadian Waste Services Inc. sought to expand a landfill site and obtained the Minister of the Environment's approval for the terms of reference for an environmental assessment.

The respondents successfully applied for judicial review, with the Divisional Court quashing the Minister's decision on the basis that the terms of reference did not include all generic elements required by the Environmental Assessment Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Minister's decision to approve tailored terms of reference was entitled to deference and was reasonable.

The appeal was allowed and the Minister's decision was reinstated.

The respondents brought a motion to strike out a notice of intervention filed by the Attorney General of Ontario in an appeal from a judicial review decision.

The respondents argued that section 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act only grants the Attorney General the right to intervene in the original application, not on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that section 9(4) is broad enough to encompass appeals, allowing the Attorney General to intervene as of right to fulfill their role as guardian of the public interest.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.

The appellants sued the provincial Crown for environmental damage caused by waste asphalt buried on their farm during highway reconstruction in the 1960s.

The respondent moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 7 of the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the disposal of waste asphalt on private land was an operational decision of a predominantly private character, not an act done in pursuance of a public duty.

Therefore, the usual six-year limitation period applied, and the action was not statute-barred.