Nicholas Patrick Adamson

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The Directors and the Instrument Holder requested clarification of the remedy sought by the Appellants in their appeals of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Tribunal ordered the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief, including proposed wording for replacement conditions where possible, to promote an efficient and effective hearing process.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals by the Concerned Citizens of Brant and the Corporation of the County of Brant against the issuance of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval to CRH Canada Group Inc. for an aggregate washing operation.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions and set a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The appellants appealed two Director's Orders requiring them to remove and dispose of PCB waste at a property in Thorold, Ontario.

The parties reached a tentative settlement where the appellants would submit a plan to remove above-ground waste and secure below-ground waste, in exchange for the revocation of the orders against them.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it provided a protective resolution for the environment given the appellants' limited financial means.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and execution of a demolition waste source separation program for an ongoing mill demolition.

Following a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued procedural directions scheduling mediation, the exchange of disclosure and witness statements, and dates for the main hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions for scheduling a motion to stay the Director's Order.

The appellants appealed a Work Order and an Implementation Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding the deposit of contaminated soil.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the installation of a fill cap.

Upon confirmation that the fill cap was installed, the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to amend the Work Order by revoking Work Item No. 1 and to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be in the public interest, amended the Work Order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change order requiring them to assess and remediate contaminated soil deposited at a former rail line property.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellants agreed to implement a Risk Management Plan, including capping the soil and ongoing monitoring.

The parties requested provisional approval of the settlement and the withdrawal of one work item from the original order.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, pending confirmation of the fill cap installation.

The appellants appealed two orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to secure, remove, and destroy PCB waste stored at their property, and to provide financial assurance.

Following unsuccessful mediation, the parties agreed to a revised timetable for the appeal process and for proposed motions to strike a notice of allegation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order confirming the schedule for document exchange, motion materials, and the main hearing dates.

The appellants appealed two Director's Orders requiring them to remediate DDT contamination in Bartlett Creek.

Following a preliminary hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Orders, limiting the remediation area to the portion of the creek on the appellants' property and modifying compliance dates.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement under Rule 201, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appeals were withdrawn and dismissed.

The appellants appealed Director's Orders requiring them to address DDT pesticide and metabolite contamination in Bartlett Creek.

At a preliminary hearing, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions and requested that hearing dates not be set immediately.

Following a subsequent telephone conference call, the Tribunal issued procedural directions on consent, establishing a timetable for disclosure, witness statements, and the hearing, while noting the parties' intention to participate in Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The respondent parents brought a motion under Rule 20(5) of the Family Law Rules seeking disclosure of the names and addresses of all private investigators hired by the Children's Services society, along with copies of all correspondence, retainer agreements, and exchanges between the society and investigators since November 2012.

The parents alleged they had observed unknown persons conducting surveillance of their home and taking photographs.

The society claimed litigation privilege over the surveillance materials.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the society has a broad disclosure obligation under Stinchcombe principles, litigation privilege protects work product prepared in contemplation of litigation, including surveillance conducted for litigation purposes that has not been relied upon as evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.

The appellant sought a declaration that s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which justifies the reasonable use of force by way of correction by parents and teachers against children, violates ss. 7, 12, and 15(1) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 43 does not offend the Charter.

The Court found that s. 43 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and does not discriminate against children, as it is grounded in their actual needs and circumstances by protecting them from the blunt instrument of the criminal law for minor disciplinary contacts.