Mitchel Boughs

The appellant appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Director for sewage works on its property.

The appellant argued that the residential septic systems were 'sewage systems' under the Building Code Act, not 'sewage works' under the Ontario Water Resources Act, and therefore the Director lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the multiple septic systems on the single parcel of land had a combined design capacity exceeding 10,000 litres per day, they constituted 'sewage works' under the OWRA.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that individual members owned their lots, finding that the appellant was the ultimate owner of the land.

The appeal was dismissed and the Amended Approval was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs discharged from its metals recycling facility onto an adjacent municipal golf course.

Following completion of the required remediation work, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director withdrew the requirement to provide an alternative irrigation water source and the appellant withdrew its appeal of the waste handling requirements.

The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the settlement as consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellant appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for domestic sewage works.

The Director requested a telephone conference to confirm whether the Appellant also represented the individual sewage works owners.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had the necessary legal authority to pursue the appeal on behalf of the individual owners based on an agency agreement, and directed the parties to provide a joint proposal for scheduling a stay motion.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of demolition waste from its property.

The appellant argued the materials were being sorted for recycling and were not waste, and that the Ministry erred in treating the movement of materials as a deposit on a new site.

The Tribunal found that the co-mingled demolition debris constituted waste under the Environmental Protection Act and that leaving it on the site for an extended period established an unapproved waste disposal site.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Director's Order was upheld with amended compliance dates.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial work following a discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs from its metals recycling facility into a municipal drain.

The parties entered into Minutes of Partial Settlement and Further Minutes of Partial Settlement to amend certain items in the Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement agreements and found that the proposed amendments were consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Director to amend the order accordingly and scheduled a continuation of the hearing to address the remaining outstanding issues.

The appellant appealed a confirmed provincial officer's order requiring the removal of demolition waste from a site.

Following a pre-hearing conference where the parties indicated that mediation would not be helpful and compliance had not been completed, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order setting dates for the disclosure of documents, exchange of witness statements, and the hearing of the appeal.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take actions regarding a historic wood waste landfill and leachate management systems.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for status in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted Party status to Hydro One, Participant status to the former owner Uniboard, and Presenter status to adjacent landowners and the City.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for disclosure and the hearing.

The appellant appealed portions of a Director's Order requiring the design of a stormwater management system and submission of an environmental compliance approval application for an auto wrecking business.

After several years of progress and the eventual approval of the stormwater management facility design and ECA application, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take actions regarding a wood waste landfill and leachate management systems.

During telephone conference calls, the parties agreed to schedule a pre-hearing conference and consented to minor amendments to the Director's Order to clarify the requirements for constructed surface flow wetlands.

The Tribunal ordered the scheduling of the pre-hearing conference and amended the Director's Order accordingly.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Director's decision confirming a Provincial Officer's Order that required the cessation of demolition waste deposition and the removal of all waste from the site.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of the Director's decision pending the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal refused the request for a stay and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles at a site in Toronto following a fire.

After negotiations, the Director confirmed the revised operation plan complied with the order.

The appellants withdrew their appeals and stay motion on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to wash water and solid waste from their truck washing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants resolved the issues with the Director and formally withdrew their appeals without requiring any alteration to the Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to solid waste and wash water generated by their truck washing facility.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference and issued an order setting the dates for the hearing and a schedule for disclosure.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles following a fire at their site.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a scheduled stay motion and asked the Tribunal to provide mediation services prior to the Pre-hearing Conference (PHC).

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent but denied the request for early Tribunal-assisted mediation, finding that its rules and practice require the PHC to occur first to ensure all interested persons have an opportunity to participate.