24 total
Party and participant status granted to multiple entities in environmental spill appeal.
At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Director's Order related to an environmental spill, several individuals and entities sought party and participant status.
The Tribunal granted party status to several potential orderees and individuals named in the order, finding their interests could be directly and substantially affected.
The Regional Municipality of Niagara was granted participant status due to its genuine interest as an adjacent property owner.
The preliminary hearing was adjourned to allow ongoing remediation work to proceed.
Tribunal grants consent stay and interim amendments to Director's Order regarding environmental contamination.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to a spill of environmental contaminants, including toluene and acetone, at a site in Fort Erie.
Several appellants brought motions to stay the Director's Order pending the final resolution of the appeals.
At the hearing, the moving parties and the Director presented an agreement for a partial stay and interim amendments to the Order.
The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the consent agreement, finding that the stay would not result in a danger to health, safety, or the environment, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to allow necessary investigative work to proceed.
Tribunal grants consent interim stay and amends Director's Order regarding site contamination investigation.
The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring work to prevent the discharge of contaminants from a site in Fort Erie.
On consent of the parties, the Environmental Review Tribunal granted an interim stay of portions of the Order and amended specific items pending the final resolution of the appeal.
The amended Order established new compliance dates and requirements for investigating soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface water impacts.
Status hearing dismissal refused where plaintiff’s financial hardship explained litigation delay.
At a status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was required to show cause why its negligence action should not be dismissed for delay after more than two years of inactivity.
The plaintiff attributed the delay to severe financial hardship caused by the alleged environmental remediation failures of the defendant, which rendered the business insolvent and unable to fund litigation steps or financial statements until late 2013.
The court accepted the explanation as an acceptable reason for delay and found that the defendant had not demonstrated actual non-compensable prejudice.
The court also declined to determine a contested limitations defence at the status hearing on the limited evidentiary record.
The action was permitted to proceed subject to a strict timetable requiring the matter to be set down for trial by June 30, 2015.
