Nadine Harris

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 appellant appealed conditions in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval relating to odour emissions from its animal by-product processing plant.

The parties reached a settlement to replace a mandatory odour performance limit with an odour objective, requiring comprehensive updates to the Odour Management Plan and continuous improvement measures.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed amendments satisfy the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and are in the public interest.

The appellant appealed conditions imposed under an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding its animal by-product processing plant, specifically concerning odour unit limits.

Prior to the scheduled three-week hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, vacated the previously set hearing dates, and scheduled a settlement hearing to be held by video.

The appellants appealed a Stop Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the alleged destruction of species at risk habitat.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that field studies were underway and the Stop Order was being complied with.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 2022 to allow the parties to complete the studies and continue settlement discussions.

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. for quarry dewatering.

CAMQ challenged Condition 3.5 of the permit, which regulated water taking during low-water advisories, arguing it was unreasonable and could cause significant environmental harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while CAMQ had standing to seek leave, it failed to meet the two-part test for leave to appeal under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director acted reasonably, considered relevant policies including the ecosystem approach and cumulative effects, and that there was no evidence the permit would result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and implementation of a closure plan for the Margach Waste Disposal Site and the provision of financial assurance.

The parties reached a settlement in principle and requested a settlement hearing.

The settlement provided an 18-month period to facilitate the sale of the site to a potential purchaser, during which the appellants would continue maintenance and monitoring.

If sold, the purchaser would assume responsibility and provide financial assurance; if not, the appellants would implement a closure plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, directed the Director to revoke the Order, and dismissed the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring maintenance, monitoring, and financial assurance for a closed waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving a comprehensive work plan, increased financial assurance of $1,000,000, and the release of former corporate directors from liability.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the Director's Order and dismissed the proceedings.

The appellant appealed conditions of an amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding odour limits at its rendering plant.

The parties could not agree on the wording of certain issues for the Issues List.

The Tribunal adopted the Director's proposed wording for three issues and revised a fourth, finding that the issues must focus on the specific facility and approval rather than general scientific declarations.

The Tribunal also granted a consent request to extend the compliance deadline for odour limits to October 1, 2022, given the hearing schedule.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a waste disposal site and a financial assurance estimate.

After the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the ECA requirement in a first phase hearing, the appellants withdrew the remainder of their appeal.

The Tribunal lifted the stay on the remaining items, set compliance dates, and dismissed the proceeding pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

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 appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan for a joint farming operation.

The Director refused the plan on the basis that a proposed NASM storage lagoon, owned by a waste management company, was a non-agricultural operation and required an Environmental Compliance Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Director erred by focusing solely on the storage lagoon rather than the entire agricultural operation.

The Tribunal concluded that the joint operation was an agricultural operation, the lagoon was not an intermediate operation, and the facility was exempt from EPA approval requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the NASM plan was approved.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan.

During a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed that mediation would not be helpful due to a dispute over statutory interpretation.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The City of Thunder Bay appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the Boulevard Lake Dam.

The parties reached a settlement to revise the permit to reflect the closure of a hydroelectric facility and clarify that water taking is for recreational and conservation uses only.

The Tribunal granted Presenter status to the North Shore Steelhead Association, who opposed the settlement seeking specific fishery objectives.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the revisions consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to provide supporting information related to two discharges.

The Appellants brought a motion requesting a stay of the Director's Order pending the outcome of the appeal.

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

The appellants appealed a preventative measures order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a steel mill and mining properties owned by an insolvent company.

Following the sale of the company under CCAA proceedings and the execution of agreements to fund and implement environmental action plans, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to revoke the order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a preventative measures order issued by the Director under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act regarding a steel mill and mining operations.

The order was issued in response to risks related to the insolvency of Essar Steel Algoma Inc. The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeal proceedings to finalize a settlement agreement in the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a status update telephone conference call.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Mansteel Appellants regarding a Director's Order related to a wood waste landfill.

The Mansteel Appellants failed to comply with Tribunal orders regarding disclosure and witness statements, failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference call, and failed to respond to communications.

The Tribunal found that the appellants showed a lack of regard for the Rules and an unwillingness to carry out their responsibilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals of the Mansteel Appellants were dismissed.

The Receiver for Northwood Recycling & Energy Inc. appealed a Director's Order requiring work at a waste disposal site.

Following an inspection confirming full compliance with the work items, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement, which revoked the Director's Order and dismissed the proceeding, to be consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

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.