Nicholas Patrick Adamson

The appellants were charged with unlawfully damaging and/or destroying protected rattlesnake habitat contrary to the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

They brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay, which was dismissed by the trial judge.

The appellants then sought certiorari and s. 24(1) Charter relief in Superior Court, arguing the trial judge failed to characterize certain disclosure as "obviously relevant" and failed to attribute all delay to the Crown.

The Superior Court dismissed both applications.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no jurisdictional error and rejecting the argument that the degree of relevance of outstanding disclosure alleviates the defence's obligation to act diligently.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that overturned the respondent's conviction under the Endangered Species Act for damaging Blanding's turtle habitat.

The appeal judge had entered an acquittal after finding the circumstantial evidence of turtle sightings from prior and subsequent years insufficient to prove the land was habitat at the time of the offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while the appeal judge's conclusion raised a question of law alone, the Crown failed to demonstrate that granting leave was essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The decision below was highly fact-specific and unlikely to establish a binding precedent requiring direct evidence of habitat use.

Leave to appeal was denied, and the respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review, including mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and s. 24(1) Charter relief, of a Justice of the Peace's decision.

The Justice of the Peace had dismissed their s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay and deferred an abuse of process application in a provincial offences proceeding concerning alleged damage to Massasauga snake habitat.

The Superior Court dismissed the applicants' request for extraordinary relief, finding that the Justice of the Peace did not exceed or decline jurisdiction.

The court held that the issues raised were not appropriate for interlocutory intervention by a superior court, emphasizing that such matters are generally best addressed on appeal after the trial has concluded.

The appellants appealed two orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work.

Following Tribunal-led mediation and expert meetings, the parties reached a settlement on a revised Delineation Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowing the appeal in part to amend the second order to reflect the agreed-upon scope, and dismissing the appeal of the first order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work at their property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested a further 90-day adjournment to continue productive settlement discussions and expert meetings involving soil sampling and testing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the progress made, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to either set a settlement hearing or finalize a procedural order and issues list for a contested hearing.

The defendants brought an application for disclosure of information related to four other land development projects, arguing it was relevant for full answer and defence, due diligence, and to demonstrate inconsistent application of environmental legislation by the Ministry.

The court determined that the materials sought were not first-party disclosure in the possession or control of the prosecution but rather third-party records held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The court outlined the proper two-step process for a third-party production application, emphasizing the need to notify the record holder and any parties with privacy interests, and provided guidance on the Crown's duty to inquire.

The application for disclosure was not granted as first-party, but the court provided a procedural path for the defendants to pursue it as third-party production.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work.

At a status update teleconference, the parties reported significant progress in settlement discussions, including meetings between experts and ongoing soil sampling.

The Tribunal agreed it would be premature to schedule a new hearing and ordered a further Case Management Conference for March 2023 to assess the status of the settlement.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula appealed its conviction for damaging Piping Plover habitat under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The appeal raised issues regarding the interpretation of "damage" under the Act and the admissibility of expert evidence from a Ministry biologist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's interpretation of "damage" as including actions that make habitat less attractive, useful, or valuable from the species' perspective, and affirming the admissibility of the expert's evidence, despite concerns about impartiality, as the trial judge's decision was entitled to deference and the evidence of another expert was sufficient.

The Tribunal held Case Management Conferences regarding appeals by the appellants against a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation.

The parties finalized a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day video hearing to commence on October 11, 2022.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil and sediment remediation work at a property in Lincoln, Ontario.

During a status update telephone conference call, the parties informed the Tribunal that the Ministry intended to issue a further Order regarding a Delineation Plan, which the appellants anticipated appealing.

The parties requested that a further Case Management Conference be scheduled to finalize procedural steps for both the present and anticipated appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the CMC for October 1, 2021.

The Town of South Bruce Peninsula sought leave to appeal convictions for damaging piping plover habitat under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The Town argued the lower courts erred in interpreting 'damage' to habitat and in applying the test for expert evidence admissibility in a regulatory offence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on both questions, finding the interpretation of 'damage' to be a serious legal question with broad public interest implications, and guidance on expert evidence in a regulatory setting to be appropriate.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil/sediment remediation and brought a motion for a stay.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend certain compliance dates and sampling requirements in the Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, and ordered the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellants withdrew their stay motion without prejudice.

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 Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks proposed to revoke a 2011 Director's Order against several appellants regarding the decommissioning of a waste disposal site and sewage works at a former paper mill.

The Tribunal found the revocation to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as the majority of the required environmental work had been completed by another party, sufficient financial assurance was held for the remaining work, and one of the appellants had passed away.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the order and dismissed the proceeding.

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.

Crown appeal of an acquittal in a provincial offences matter concerning the interpretation of the standard of "reasonable belief" under section 156(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The respondent was charged with hindering or obstructing a provincial officer in the performance of his duties after preventing an inspection of his property where an open fire was burning.

The central issue was whether the provincial officer had the requisite authority to conduct a warrantless inspection based on information received from a bylaw officer regarding smoke and waste disposal on the property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, establishing that "reasonable belief" in the regulatory inspection context is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable grounds" and does not require the application of criminal law standards for assessing informant tips.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed on a winery corporation that pleaded guilty to discharging material into a watercourse in violation of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The trial judge imposed a fine of $600, invoking section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to relieve the defendant from the statutory minimum fine of $25,000.

The appeal judge increased the fine to $5,000, still below the minimum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed the minimum fine of $25,000, holding that section 59(2) must be applied with appropriate restraint to avoid undermining the deterrent purpose of minimum fines in public welfare legislation.

The applicants sought leave to appeal their convictions under the Environmental Protection Act following a 14-day trial and a subsequent appeal to the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicants were convicted of nine provincial offences related to discharging contaminants into the environment and failing to comply with lawful orders issued following catastrophic propane explosions at their facility that killed one employee and displaced approximately 12,000 residents.

The Court of Appeal considered whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, which requires identification of a pure question of law that is essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The court found that the two grounds of appeal raised by the applicants were fact-laden and did not identify pure questions of law transcending the unique factual circumstances of the case.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple regulatory offences under the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a massive propane explosion at their facility that resulted in a worker's death and widespread environmental contamination.

The appellants argued the trial judge made numerous factual and legal errors, including rejecting their defence of officially induced error and finding a lack of due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of strict liability principles.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeals, upholding over $5 million in fines due to the unprecedented magnitude of the damage and the appellants' reckless conduct.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued an order requiring the removal of waste materials and remediation of a site.

Several parties appealed the order.

After the required work was completed to the Director's satisfaction, the Director proposed to revoke the order against the remaining appellants.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the proposed revocation as consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, and dismissed the remaining appeals.