Municipality of North Middlesex v. Director, Ministry of the Environment
CITATION: Municipality of North Middlesex v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2013 ONSC 5794
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 374/13
DATE: 20130913
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, HIMEL AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
BETWEEN:
MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH MIDDLESEX
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT and BORNISH WIND G.P., AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF BORNISH WIND L.P.
Respondents
COUNSEL:
Eric K. Gillespie and Natalie Smith, for the Appellant
Matthew Horner, Andrea Huckins and Daniel Huffaker, for the Respondent, Director, Ministry of the Environment
John B. Laskin, for the Respondent, Bornish Wind G.P. as general partner for and on behalf of Bornish Wind L.P.
HEARD at Toronto: September 13, 2013
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J. (orally)
[1] The Municipality of North Middlesex appeals two decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal. The first decision, dated July 12, 2013, granted the Director’s motion to strike the Appellant’s Notice of Constitutional Question from the Municipality’s appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18 and refused to grant the Municipality public interest standing. This decision also dismissed what was essentially a cross motion requesting party status on the appeal for Philip Verkley. Mr. Verkley is not an appellant in this court. The second order, dated August 1, 2013 was made on consent, but without prejudice to the Municipality’s statutory right of appeal. That decision dismissed the Municipality’s appeal.
[2] In its decision of July 12, 2013, the Environmental Review Tribunal correctly applied the law and did not err in principle. Counsel for the Municipality brought to our attention the Tribunal’s subsequent decision in Bovaird v. Director, Ministry of the Environment dated September 6, 2013. We agree with the Tribunal’s conclusion in Bovaird that it is distinguishable from this case. See paras. 51-52 of that decision. The reasons of the Tribunal in this case are not merely adequate; they are compelling. The appellant has failed to establish any basis for appellant interference with the Tribunal’s Order of July 12, 2013. There is therefore no basis upon which to challenge the consent order of August 1, 2013 dismissing the Municipality’s appeal to the Environmental Appeal Tribunal.
[3] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
[Submissions on Costs]
[4] On behalf of the panel, I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book, “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons given and recorded. The appellant is to pay costs to Bornish Wind G.P. Inc., fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.”
ASTON J.
HIMEL J.
LINHARES DE SOUSA J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 13, 2013
Date of Release: September 17, 2013
CITATION: Municipality of North Middlesex v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, 2013 ONSC 5794
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 374/13
DATE: 20130913
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
ASTON, HIMEL AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
BETWEEN:
MUNICIPALITY OF NORTH MIDDLESEX
Appellant
– and –
DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT and BORNISH WIND G.P., AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF BORNISH WIND L.P.
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 13, 2013
Date of Release: September 17, 2013