CITATION: Ontario Waste Management Assn. v. Waste Diversion Ontario, 2012 ONSC 6927
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 459/12
DATE: 20121204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HACKLAND R.S.J., ASTON AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Applicant
– and –
WASTE DIVERSION ONTARIO and STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO
Respondents
Harry Dahme and Goldie Bassi, for the Applicant
Andrew J. Roman, for the Respondent, Waste Diversion Ontario
Brendan O. Brammall, for the Respondent, Stewardship Ontario
HEARD at Toronto: December 4, 2012
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J. (orally)
[1] The applicant requested an adjournment of its application in order to develop new evidence which it says will be relevant and probative. Counsel agreed that certain preliminary issues could be addressed before deciding whether or not to adjourn the application.
[2] In our opinion, for the reasons following, this case is not amenable to judicial review and we exercise our discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to decline to hear the application.
[3] First, this is not a review of a quasi judicial decision or the action of a tribunal. In pith and substance, it is a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. At its core, this case is primarily about commercial interests rather than the public interest. Second, the adjournment request highlights the need to explore complicated and conflicting evidence from a potential large number of witnesses. The Divisional Court will inevitably have to perform the function of a trial court. Third, in our view, the applicant does not have standing, but even if we are wrong in that conclusion, there is no way of knowing that all the stakeholders are before the Court or that everyone who should have an opportunity to participate in the case, or who might be bound by the result, has been afforded that opportunity.
[4] The applicant does not purport to speak for a majority of those engaged in waste management services, either in the public or the private sector, even if its membership does include key players.
[5] The judicial review application is quashed without determination on the merits.
COSTS
HACKLAND R.S.J.
[6] On behalf of the panel I have endorsed the back of the Application Record, “For oral reasons delivered today by Aston J. this application is quashed without determination on the merits. The Court should receive costs submissions (5 pages max.) from the respective parties within 10 days.”
ASTON J.
HACKLAND R.S.J.
LEDERER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 4, 2012
Date of Release: December 10, 2012
CITATION: Ontario Waste Management Assn. v. Waste Diversion Ontario, 2012 ONSC 6927
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 459/12
DATE: 20121204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HACKLAND R.S.J., ASTON AND LEDERER JJ.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Applicant
– and –
WASTE DIVERSION ONTARIO and STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 4, 2012
Date of Release: December 10, 2012