Madeline Ritchie

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of Condition 5.4 of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the decommissioning of a former uranium mine.

The parties reached a proposed resolution to stay the condition, subject to alternative monitoring and reporting requirements.

The Tribunal found that the statutory tests for a stay under the Environmental Protection Act were met, as the proposed stay would not hinder monitoring, cause danger to human health, or impair the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc. brought a motion to be added as a Party to an appeal regarding a Certificate of Property Use issued for a neighbouring property.

Electrolux is a defendant in related civil proceedings concerning historic contamination.

The Director and the City opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that Electrolux had a genuine interest in the proceeding because the issue of historic contamination was relevant to both the Tribunal appeal and the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal granted Electrolux Party status, limited to providing evidence and submissions on the specific issue of historic contamination, and required it to shelter under the appellants' issue without altering the existing procedural schedule.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Guelph, the Florence Lane Residents Group, and Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc., finding their participation necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to revise two issues on the draft Issues List to ensure they are framed in a neutral context.

A further Case Management Conference and a nine-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The Appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring it to take actions to address potential contamination at its property, pending an appeal.

The Tribunal found it had the authority to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the historic contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay.

The Appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as its financial costs were potentially recoverable in ongoing civil litigation and did not outweigh the public interest in identifying and managing the source of trichloroethylene contamination.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring environmental investigation and reporting regarding potential trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at its site, pending an appeal hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that potential compliance costs could be pursued in ongoing civil litigation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in identifying the source of the TCE contamination.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Director's Order requiring it to undertake actions to address contamination on its property.

The parties agreed to stay several items, but disputed whether Items 8 and 9, which required a Groundwater Monitoring Program and Report, could be stayed.

The Tribunal found that the items, as they related to existing wells, constituted an order to monitor, record, and report, which cannot be stayed under section 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion for an interim stay of those items was dismissed, though requirements relating to newly installed wells were stayed pending the main motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Certificate of Property Use issued for a property in Guelph.

The parties agreed on most issues for the hearing, and the Tribunal resolved a disagreement over the wording of one issue regarding contaminant migration.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing to commence in December 2023 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding potential contamination at a site in Guelph.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant sought an interim stay of several items in the Order pending a full motion for a stay.

The Tribunal granted an interim stay of Item 3 on consent, noting that the requirements for Items 4 through 7 are only triggered following the completion of Item 3.

The issue of whether the Tribunal has the authority to stay Items 8 and 9, which relate to a groundwater monitoring program, was adjourned to a further Case Management Conference.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) issued to an aggregate pit operator, the Tribunal determined the final Issues List.

The appellants sought to include issues relating to aggregate washing, settlement ponds, and groundwater quality impacts from those processes.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider aggregate washing and related sewage works in a PTTW appeal, as those matters are governed by a separate Environmental Compliance Approval process under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Tribunal struck or amended the disputed issues to ensure they strictly related to the taking of water, rather than its subsequent treatment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Permit to Take Water issued for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The parties could not agree on a joint Issues List, with the Director objecting to issues relating to sewage works and the characterization of water resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange written positions to finalize the Issues List and declined to schedule the hearing until the Procedural Order and Issues List are resolved.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

Tamlann Investments Inc., a former owner of the subject lands and an orderee, was granted party status over the appellant's objection.

Erectoweld Limited, a neighbouring property owner, was granted participant status on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval for a 12-month pilot program to process municipal de-watered biosolids.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to the proximity of residential dwellings, cumulative impacts, the operator's track record, and potential health risks.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, as the Director's decision was reasonable and included appropriate conditions to mitigate environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

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.