Nadine Harris

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order concerning the management and transport of excess soils.

The parties submitted a finalized Procedural Order.

The Tribunal accepted the Procedural Order and scheduled a one-day motion hearing and a 10-day merit hearing to resolve the appeal.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take preventive measures regarding the off-site discharge of contaminated stormwater from a brownfield property.

The Appellants argued that the Director lacked jurisdiction because there was no evidence of an actual adverse effect or actual impairment of water quality.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act permit preventive measures orders where there is a potential for adverse effects or impairment.

The Tribunal found the site to be highly contaminated, with stormwater exceeding aquatic life guideline values for contaminants like hexavalent chromium by several orders of magnitude, and confirmed the Director's Order in its entirety.

The appellants sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil deposited on the subject property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and compliance prior to a hearing constituted irreparable harm due to mootness, the balance of convenience favoured the Director and the public interest in protecting drinking water sources.

The motions for a stay were denied, but the Tribunal granted alternative relief by extending the compliance deadlines by nine weeks.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil at the subject property.

During a status update call, the appellants confirmed partial compliance with the Order and sought to stay the remaining items.

The Tribunal scheduled a stay motion hearing and set filing dates, noting that an interim stay order was unnecessary as the motion would be heard before the compliance dates for the remaining items.

The appellant purchased a former waste disposal site and inherited an Environmental Compliance Approval requiring post-closure monitoring and financial assurance.

The Director issued an order requiring the appellant to submit financial assurance of $74,638.

The appellant appealed, arguing they should not have to pay until a civil suit against the prior owner was resolved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not complied with monitoring requirements and that delaying the financial assurance was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's order and set a payment deadline of May 1, 2026.

The Appellants brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing of their appeal of a Director's Order regarding sewage works on their property.

They sought a three-month adjournment to allow time to complete and submit an amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application, which they argued would resolve the issues in dispute.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing that the ECA process is separate from the appeal of the Order and that previous adjournments had not resulted in a resolution.

The Tribunal applied the criteria for adjournments and found no serious consequences or prejudice to the Appellants if the hearing proceeded, as they could pursue the ECA concurrently.

Noting the history of previous adjournments and the public interest in an expeditious resolution, the Tribunal denied the motion to adjourn.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order relating to sewage works, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing to allow time for the Director to consider an amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal directed that the adjournment request be heard via a written motion and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding a property containing an old tailings pond and waste rock site.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had reached a potential settlement, subject to the appellant completing certain equipment setup to prevent groundwater contaminant exceedances.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, which may be converted to a settlement hearing, and ordered that this matter not be heard together with a related file.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but were awaiting the resolution of related files.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference, with the option to convert it to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a case management conference, the parties advised they were working towards a settlement but required extensions to several compliance deadlines in the Order.

On consent, the Tribunal granted the deadline extensions and ordered that the appeal be heard separately from another related file.

A further case management conference was scheduled to monitor progress or proceed as a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the operation and maintenance of a mobile treatment unit at a former mine site.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that minutes of settlement had been signed, pending the completion of certain equipment installations.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal be heard together with a related matter and scheduled a subsequent case management conference to monitor settlement progress.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring mitigation of mine effluent impacts at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but required additional time to complete certain actions, including equipment installation and remediation fund allocation, before finalizing the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2025, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that settlement discussions were productive and requested a second CMC to either present a settlement proposal or schedule a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 27, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order, an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and a Notice of Suspension of the Amended ECA regarding its facility in Sarnia.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant indicated its intention to withdraw all appeals except for one item in the Amended ECA relating to the cessation of accepting and storing benzene.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings closed and discontinued for the withdrawn appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining issue.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to resolve inadequacies in existing sewage works on a property with a history of industrial uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that their experts were engaged in productive discussions and requested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence in September 2025, which will be vacated if mediation is successful, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ontario Graphite Ltd. against Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The orders relate to contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order prescribing actions to dispose, manage, and reduce leachate from its hazardous waste management facility.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Order to require specific monthly leachate disposal volumes based on the site's estimated leachate volume, and to incorporate these requirements into an updated Design and Operations Plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be protective of the environment and in the public interest, approved the Minutes of Settlement, and directed the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the disposal of leachate and submission of an abatement plan under the Environmental Protection Act.

At the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached but the agreement was still being drafted.

The parties requested an adjournment to finalize the settlement documents.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a new video hearing date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The appellant requested an adjournment because they had retained new counsel who needed time to review the file.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directed the parties to continue discussions to narrow the issues, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2025.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.

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