OERT 2015

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The appellant in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind power project, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment, specifically focusing on Barn Owls and Bald Eagles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving that the project would cause such harm.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the project was unlikely to result in bird strikes or significant habitat displacement, and confirmed the Director's decision to issue the REA.

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 Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease using a former waste disposal site and remove all vehicles and equipment.

The parties reached an agreement to request an adjournment of the hearing subject to specific conditions regarding site restoration work.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent, imposing conditions including the completion of a slope stability study and site restoration work.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Tribunal considered a consent request to adjourn an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval issued to the Approval Holder.

The parties consented to a 39-day adjournment.

Pursuant to s. 59(2)1.i of O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the date of deemed confirmation of the approval to January 15, 2016.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to perform work on sewage works.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellants replaced the sewage system under the Ontario Building Code, obtained necessary permits, and removed components from the shore road allowance.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.

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 appellant appealed Director's Orders regarding the containment and monitoring of groundwater contamination.

Following a previous Tribunal order upholding the Director's Orders, the appellant withdrew the Notices of Allegation against third parties.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate due to insufficient operator-in-charge experience.

Prior to the main hearing, the appellant indicated his intention to withdraw the appeal, and the Director did not object.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant, operator of a concrete batching facility, appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued by the Director.

The amendments changed the calculation of truck arrival limits from 'per hour' to 'per 60 minute period', clarified that 'deliveries' included all truck arrivals and departures, and added a requirement to record the arrival and departure times of all trucks.

The appellant argued these changes were novel, impractical, and not supported by noise guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the amendments were appropriate to prevent the clustering of truck arrivals, mitigate noise impacts on neighbouring residents, and ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal confirmed the Director's amendments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The Tribunal found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland, but dismissed the other environmental and human health grounds.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to provide submissions on the appropriate remedy under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval granted to the approval holder for a wind facility.

At a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered unopposed requests for participant and presenter status from various individuals and organizations.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a conservation authority and a local resident, and presenter status to a naturalist group and a citizens' coalition.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and a schedule for the proceeding.

The Regional Municipality of Peel brought a motion to revoke a Director's Order regarding the removal of waste ash from a site, requesting the motion be heard prior to the main appeals.

The City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association sought participant status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted participant status to both entities and ordered that Peel's motion to revoke be heard prior to the hearing of the appeals, subject to a schedule for disclosure.

The appellant appealed a renewable energy approval issued to the approval holder for a wind park.

During the hearing, the approval holder introduced new evidence regarding grassland and woodland compensation properties.

To allow sufficient time to consider this new evidence and the responding evidence, the Tribunal ordered a 14-day adjournment under O. Reg. 359/09, extending the statutory deadline for the disposition of the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for presenter status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility in Prince Edward County.

Four individuals and organizations requested presenter status to provide evidence on birds, wildlife, ecosystems, and human health.

Finding that the requesters had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions, the Tribunal granted presenter status to all four, subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of their presentations.

The Moving Parties sought a stay or adjournment of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project, pending the outcome of their application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal determined the request was for an adjournment rather than a stay.

Applying its Rules of Practice, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not justified, as the judicial review would not necessarily resolve the issues before the Tribunal, and delaying the hearing would prejudice the appellant and not serve the public interest in timely proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The instrument holder, Waste Management of Canada Corporation, requested an extension of a deadline set out in an interim order regarding an Environmental Compliance Approval for a landfill site.

The extension was needed to complete unanticipated additional drilling and testing for groundwater monitoring wells.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the reasonable explanation and lack of objections from other parties, and ordered the Director to amend the ECA accordingly on an interim basis.

The appellant appealed an order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was discharging a contaminant.

After completing the required decommissioning work to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.