Environmental Law - ODC

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

Following preliminary motions in an application for judicial review concerning a wind energy project, both the applicant and the intervenor sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs for a motion for party status and a motion for protective costs.

The intervenor sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the motions were unnecessary.

The court found that the applicant was successful on the first motion, while the intervenor was successful on the second.

Noting the excessive costs claimed and inadequate cost outlines, the court concluded that the entitlements offset each other and made no order as to costs.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing its motion to stay construction of a wind turbine project and its application for judicial review.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to halt construction, alleging violations of the Renewable Energy Approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's letter confirming construction was unavoidable did not constitute the exercise of a statutory power of decision reviewable under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Consequently, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify an injunction.

The Town of New Tecumseth appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board, which found that the respondent's proposal to import fill to establish an apple orchard was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from the Town's fill by-law.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings on the evidence and its interpretation of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

However, the Court granted the appeal in part to amend the Board's order, allowing the Town an opportunity to provide comments on the required fill management plan before it is finalized.

The applicants, two municipalities, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted them party status but limited the evidence they could present regarding a proposed aggregate pit.

The Board restricted their evidence to the incremental impact of truck traffic on their roads, preventing them from comparing alternative haul routes.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions as the limitations effectively prevented the Board from considering mandatory statutory factors under the Aggregate Resources Act, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review concerning the approval of a wind farm project, the successful respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $163,961.25.

The applicants opposed the costs and sought their own costs, arguing the case involved novel heritage issues and public interest.

The court rejected claims of misconduct from both sides that would justify extraordinary costs.

Acknowledging the public interest and novelty of the heritage issues, the majority reduced the costs award and ordered the applicants to pay $75,000 to the successful respondent.

A dissenting judge would have ordered no costs, emphasizing the importance of public participation in judicial review of government decisions.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision approving official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed limestone quarry.

The appellants argued the OMB breached procedural fairness during a partial re-hearing and misapprehended evidence regarding at-risk turtles and noise levels.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the appellants had consented to the re-hearing process and that the OMB's evidentiary findings were reasonable.

However, the Court granted the appeal on one issue, finding the OMB erred in law by proposing noise mitigation measures that might require access to private lands without evidence of feasibility, and remitted that issue to the OMB.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motions for summary judgment regarding claims of nuisance, trespass, and negligence arising from the application of biosolids on their farm.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the proper summary judgment principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The plaintiffs had failed to provide expert evidence or sufficient factual evidence to establish the elements of their claims, and the motion judge improperly speculated on what evidence might be available at trial.

The action against the appellants was dismissed.

The applicants, owners of a designated heritage property, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to issue a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind farm project.

The applicants argued the Director failed to properly interpret the REA Regulation regarding cultural heritage and breached procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness, the Director's decision to issue the REA was reasonable and balanced the statutory priorities, and the comprehensive procedural code in the REA Regulation fulfilled the duty of procedural fairness.