Environmental Law - ODC

The applicants, environmental advocacy organizations, brought applications for judicial review challenging the failure of various Ontario Ministers to conduct public consultations under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR) before enacting the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020.

The applicants argued that the Ministers acted unreasonably by failing to post proposed amendments to several statutes on the Environmental Registry.

The Divisional Court dismissed most of the challenges, finding the Ministers' decisions reasonable or shielded by retroactive legislation.

However, the court granted the application in part, issuing a declaration that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing acted unreasonably and unlawfully by failing to post proposed amendments respecting Ministerial Zoning Orders under the Planning Act prior to implementation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority granting a permit to the Town of South Bruce Peninsula to build a retaining wall on Sauble Beach.

The applicant also challenged the Town's decision to proceed without obtaining a permit under the Endangered Species Act or conducting an environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court found the Authority's decision to issue the permit was unreasonable because it failed to properly apply the test under O. Reg. 151/06 and failed to consider the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement regarding dynamic beach hazards.

The permit was quashed and remitted to the Authority.

The challenges to the Town's decisions regarding the Endangered Species Act and Environmental Assessment Act were dismissed as premature and lacking the proper respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Markham's alleged decisions to plan and approve a four-lane collector road crossing protected Greenbelt lands.

The City argued the application was premature because the environmental assessment and planning processes were ongoing and no final location for the road had been determined.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are complete.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

The City of Windsor appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision awarding the respondents approximately $2.8 million in compensation for expropriated lands and injurious affection.

The City argued the LPAT breached natural justice by copying the respondents' submissions and erred in its treatment of Provincial Policy Statements (PPS) regarding environmentally sensitive lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the extent of copying did not rebut the presumption of independent decision-making.

The Court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the LPAT's factual findings regarding the impact of the PPS on the lands' development potential, the valuation of the properties, or the award of interest.

The applicant sought to quash a permit issued by the conservation authority to the respondent town for work on a beach, which was scheduled before the return of the Piping Plover.

The Divisional Court issued a bottom-line endorsement granting the application in part, quashing the permit, and remitting the matter back to the conservation authority.

The balance of the application was dismissed, with full reasons to follow.

The applicant landowners sought judicial review of the Minister's decision denying their request to 'bump-up' a class environmental assessment for a road-widening project to an individual environmental assessment.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair due to alleged errors in the environmental study report regarding stormwater management.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Minister's decision was reasonable as it addressed the applicants' concerns by imposing conditions and relying on concurrent planning processes.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness or legitimate expectations.

The potential applicants intend to seek judicial review of any permit issued by the Minister of the Environment allowing the Town of Sauble Beach to carry out works that could destroy sensitive plover habitat.

During a case management teleconference, the court directed the parties to behave reasonably and attempt to agree on terms for a potential stay and an expedited application process.

The court established that it would expedite any necessary stay motion and provided instructions for arranging an emergency case management conference if interim terms could not be agreed upon.

A case management teleconference was held to set a return date and procedural directions for an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment.

The court scheduled a one-day ZOOM videoconference hearing for August 20, 2020, and provided detailed instructions for the electronic exchange of materials, including the use of a password-protected drop box and hyperlinked factums.

A case management endorsement addressing correspondence from counsel for the Concerned Citizens of North Stormont regarding a potential recusal motion based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that no decision had been made to proceed with the motion and discussed the potential application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court left it to the parties to decide how to proceed, noting that ongoing settlement discussions could affect their decisions.

Nation Rise sought judicial review of the Minister's decision to revoke its Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Minister had revoked the approval based on concerns about harm to bat maternity colonies, an issue not raised by the parties before the Environmental Review Tribunal or on appeal.

The Divisional Court quashed the Minister's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Minister lacked statutory authority to raise new issues on appeal, applied the wrong legal test by using a precautionary approach, and misapprehended the evidence.

The Court also found the Minister breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of the new issue and denying the parties an opportunity to make submissions on remedy.

The ERT's approval of the project was reinstated.

The applicants, the City of Toronto and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop an arbitration between the respondents, Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority and Stewardship Ontario.

The applicants argued that the arbitration was not the proper forum to challenge a funding obligation decision and sought to have the matter determined by judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the arbitration to proceed as scheduled.

Greenpeace Canada brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that the Ontario government unlawfully cancelled the cap and trade program without following the public consultation requirements of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).

The Minister had claimed an exemption under the EBR, arguing that the recent general election was a substantially equivalent process of public participation.

The Divisional Court found that the election was not substantially equivalent and the government failed to comply with the EBR.

However, the application was dismissed because the government subsequently passed valid legislation repealing the cap and trade program and barring proceedings, rendering the requested declaratory relief of no practical effect.

The Registrar brought a motion to stay a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal that set aside the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend the respondent's crematorium license.

The respondent operated a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis machine, which the Registrar argued posed a risk to public health due to uncertainty about its ability to destroy prions in the effluent.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised serious issues of law regarding the standard of risk assessment and the precautionary principle.

Concluding that the potential risk to public health constituted irreparable harm that outweighed the respondent's financial losses, the court granted the stay pending the disposition of the appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis of mootness.

The underlying application challenged the Minister's decision to invoke an exception under the Environmental Bill of Rights, bypassing public consultation for revoking the cap and trade program by claiming the recent provincial election was a substantially equivalent process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the scope of the Minister's exception power remains a live controversy despite the subsequent repeal of the relevant legislation.

The court further held that even if the matter were moot, it would exercise its discretion to hear the application to provide clarity on the statutory exemption.

The applicant, a manager of a hazardous waste facility, sought judicial review of a justice of the peace's order compelling him to submit to an interview and produce documents under s. 163.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed the order, finding that the statutory provision authorizes investigators to use devices and techniques but does not explicitly confer the power to compel third parties to answer questions or produce documents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the provincial Minister of Natural Resources' decisions imposing quotas on yellow perch and walleye for their 2007 and 2008 commercial fishing licences.

They argued the statutory framework was an unlawful delegation of federal authority and that the Minister unreasonably fettered his discretion by adopting the Lake Erie Committee's recommendations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegation lawful under established precedent and concluding the Minister's reliance on the international committee's expertise was reasonable and did not constitute an abdication of responsibility.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decisions imposing quotas on yellow perch and walleye for their 2007 and 2008 commercial fishing licences.

They argued the delegation of power to the Minister was unlawful and unconstitutional, and that the Minister unreasonably fettered his discretion by adopting the recommendations of the Lake Erie Committee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the delegation lawful under established jurisprudence.

The court also held that the Minister did not abdicate his responsibility and that his reliance on the international committee's expertise and recommendations was reasonable given the shared nature of the Lake Erie fishery.