Nadine Harris

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 Order regarding a waste disposal site.

At a pre-hearing conference, the City of Oshawa and the Ummah Foundation sought and were granted participant status without objection.

The parties jointly requested and were granted an adjournment of the pre-hearing conference to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and to address a related jurisdictional motion filed in court.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to carry out work items relating to discharges from their greenhouse operation.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants complied with the order and the parties agreed to withdraw the appeals.

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 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 appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease using a former waste disposal site and remove vehicles.

The Director subsequently requested the Tribunal revoke the order and dismiss the appeal, noting the site had been restored, illegal waste removed, and a section 46 Environmental Protection Act approval granted for use as an unpaved parking lot.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, revoked the Director's Order, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order Amendment requiring work at a Tailings Management Facility.

Prior to the hearing, the required work was completed by other named parties, and the Director proposed to revoke the Order against the appellant.

The Tribunal reviewed the proposed revocation under Rule 202, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order against the appellant, and dismissed the appeal.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.

The appellants brought motions to stay various sections of a Director's Order requiring them to maintain environmental protection measures and assess environmental conditions at steel mill and mining operations.

The Tribunal granted the Company Directors' motion to stay section 2.9 on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Company and Company Officers' motion to stay section 2.11, but dismissed the request to stay the remaining sections.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease using a former waste disposal site and remove all vehicles and equipment.

The parties reached an agreement to request an adjournment of the hearing subject to specific conditions regarding site restoration work.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, imposing conditions including the completion of a slope stability study and site restoration work.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order and its amendments requiring work at a mine site.

North American Palladium Ltd. was granted party status.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement whereby the Director agreed to revoke the orders, as the required work had been completed, and the appellants agreed to abandon their appeals.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the legislation and in the public interest, and dismissed the proceeding.

In a preliminary hearing for an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and a local resident, and presenter status to two other individuals.

The Tribunal also confirmed the procedural schedule leading up to the main hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status from the City of Kawartha Lakes, Save the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, and two individuals.

The Tribunal granted the requests subject to general conditions, finding that the applicants had a genuine interest and would make a relevant contribution to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also confirmed procedural directions and the hearing schedule.

The appellant municipality appealed a no-fault remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment under s. 157.1 of the Environmental Protection Act following a fuel oil spill that migrated onto municipal property.

The appellant sought to introduce evidence before the Environmental Review Tribunal to prove that others were at fault for the spill, relying on the 'polluter pays' principle.

The Tribunal excluded this evidence as irrelevant to the environmental protection objective of the Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that evidence of third-party fault is irrelevant to whether a no-fault order should be revoked.