Nadine Harris

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an excavator from a flood plain and related environmental remediation.

Following several case management conferences, the excavator was successfully extracted and all requirements of the Director's Order were satisfied.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal found it in the public interest to dismiss the proceeding and close the file.

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

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ministry advised that the Order had been fulfilled.

The appellant requested additional time to review newly disclosed documents and determine how to proceed with the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter held in abeyance until the appellant requests a subsequent conference or until April 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions were continuing and requested a further conference.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 19, 2024.

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

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant requested an adjournment to review a recently received technical report review from the Ministry.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and ordered a further exchange of relevant documents.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an environmental compliance order concerning benzene emissions, three community members sought party status.

The Tribunal granted them party status under s. 145(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, finding their individual perspectives on health impacts would assist the adjudication.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant leave to amend its grounds for appeal in light of a new federal Interim Order and provincial regulation.

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 parties reported progress in their discussions and requested that the scheduled October 2024 hearing dates be vacated.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the hearing dates, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024.

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 Tribunal ordered the consolidation of three related proceedings to ensure an efficient process and avoid inconsistent decisions.

A further Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing on the merits were scheduled, and a Procedural Order was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd. against a Director's Order and the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval related to benzene emissions.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation requested and was granted party status without objection, given its direct interest and the health impacts experienced by its members.

The Tribunal also set dates for the first Case Management Conference and a two-day stay motion, and established a schedule for the exchange of motion materials.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an abandoned excavator from a flood plain and sought a stay of the order pending the appeal.

The renter of the excavator, who was jointly named in the order, did not appeal and continued to comply with the order's mitigation plan.

On consent of the parties, and applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal granted the stay of the order against the appellant until the final disposition of the appeal, noting that no environmental harm would result as long as the renter continued to comply.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Appellant requested a brief adjournment on consent to retain new counsel.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for June 25, 2024.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an abandoned excavator from a flood plain and sought a stay of the order.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the renter of the equipment had retained a contractor to extract the excavator and that a consent stay might be agreed upon.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider the consent stay or determine next steps if an agreement could not be reached.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for a former industrial property in Guelph, arguing that the CPU failed to adequately address the risk of contaminated groundwater migrating offsite to their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that while there was a risk of contaminant migration to one of the adjacent properties (10 Kingsmill), there was no risk of migration to the other (490 York).

The Tribunal held that the CPU's groundwater monitoring program and contingency requirements provided sufficient safeguards to address the potential for adverse effects, and that implementing physical barriers would be premature and potentially harmful given the complex fractured bedrock environment.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the CPU to reclassify two monitoring wells as downgradient and to require the City to provide advance notice of groundwater sampling to the adjacent property owners, but otherwise confirmed the CPU.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Environmental Penalty Order issued for water emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal reviewed a draft Procedural Order and directed amendments.

Noting the respondent's refusal to consent to mediation, the Tribunal invoked its mandate to ensure cost-effective resolution and directed the appellant to file a Request for Mediation.

A three-day hearing on the merits was scheduled.

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 issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 9, 2024.

The appeal concerns a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act requiring work to prevent, decrease, or eliminate an adverse effect from a contaminant.

The procedural order sets out deadlines for disclosure, witness lists, witness statements, expert meetings, and the filing of a hearing plan.

At a case management conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the Tribunal considered requests for party status from Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc., Florence Lane Residents Group Inc., and the City of Guelph.

Finding that all three entities had a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding and would assist the Tribunal, party status was granted to each.

The parties also provided an update on settlement discussions and a subsequent case management conference was scheduled.

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.