Citizens Against Melrose Quarry v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2015 CanLII 33615

Environmental Review Tribunal

Tribunal de l’environnement

ISSUE DATE:

June 11, 2015

CASE NO.:

14-092

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28, as amended

Appellant:

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry

Instrument Holder:

C.H. Demill Holdings Inc.

Respondent:

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal:

Permit to Take Water from Long’s Quarry Sump issued under section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as amended

Reference No.:

7742-9E9TGN

Property Address/Description:

Lot 6, Concession 3

Municipality:

Township of Tyendinaga

Upper Tier:

County of Hastings

ERT Case No.:

14-092

ERT Case Name:

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

Heard:

In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry

Richard D. Lindgren and Joseph F. Castrilli

C.H. Demill Holdings Inc.

Tony Fleming

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Andrea Huckins and Sarah Kromkamp

ORDER DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS

REASONS

Background

1This order addresses a motion to amend an order partially lifting the automatic stay of a Permit to Take Water.

2On October 27, 2014, the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) granted leave (the “Leave Decision”) to Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (the “Appellant”) to appeal the issuance of Permit to Take Water No. 7742-9E9TGN (the “PTTW”) for the dewatering of Long’s Quarry Sump (the “Quarry”), which is located in Tyendinaga Township, near Belleville, Ontario. In its Leave Decision, the Tribunal indicated that the automatic stay of the PTTW (imposed under s. 42 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993) would remain in place pending a motion to lift it. The PTTW had been issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”), on June 27, 2014 to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. (the “Permit Holder”) under s. 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (“OWRA”). It expires on June 30, 2015 and the Permit Holder has applied to the MOECC for a new PTTW for dewatering after that date.

3The Appellant filed its appeal on November 7, 2014, seeking an Order revoking the PTTW in its entirety, or in the alternative, directing the Director to substitute conditions in the PTTW to be specified by the Tribunal.

4On February 27, 2015, the Permit Holder filed a motion requesting the Tribunal to lift the automatic stay. That motion was heard on March 31, 2015 in Belleville, Ontario. The transcripts of cross-examinations of affiants regarding the motion on behalf of the Permit Holder and Appellant were received by the Tribunal on April 21, 2015 and the Tribunal issued an Order partially lifting the stay on April 24, 2015 (the “April Order”). The April Order conditionally lifted the stay for a period of 10 days to allow dewatering to be undertaken.

5On May 4, 2015, the Permit Holder filed a new motion requesting that the April Order be reviewed and varied so as to increase the number of days over which the Permit Holder may dewater the Quarry from 10 days to 30 days or until the Quarry is dewatered, whichever comes first. It also sought to allow the dewatering to occur intermittently rather than over consecutive days. The grounds put forward by the Permit Holder on this new motion included that new evidence had emerged since the hearing of the original motion on March 31, 2015.

6On May 7, 8 and 11, 2015, telephone conference calls (“TCCs”) were convened with the Tribunal to schedule the motion and facilitate efforts at settlement. During the TCC on May 11, 2015, the Parties agreed to settle the motion, in part. Specifically, they agreed to request that the Tribunal amend the April Order so as to allow the Permit Holder to dewater intermittently for a total of 10 days rather than over a period of 10 consecutive days and to adjust monitoring requirements accordingly. By oral order, the Tribunal amended the April Order as follows:

Paragraph 34(a) of the Order is amended to read, “the stay is lifted for a period of 10 days that will allow the Permit Holder to remove a maximum of 25 million litres of water from the Quarry. The dewatering need not be over a consecutive period of 10 days if equipment failures, or other stoppages, occur that interrupt the dewatering process. The Permit Holder shall not commence dewatering until the written plan referred to in subparagraph (i) below is submitted to the MOECC.”;

Paragraph 34(e) of the Order is amended to read, “the Permit Holder shall undertake manual private well monitoring, as described in the PTTW’s approved monitoring programme, at the commencement of the water taking and then five days and ten days after the commencement of the water taking and after the tenth day, every five days thereafter until the water taking ceases. The data derived from this monitoring shall be provided to the MOECC immediately after it is obtained.”

In all other respects, the Order of the Tribunal shall remain in full force and effect.

7This amendment did not fully resolve the Permit Holder’s motion. The Permit Holder still sought an extension of the duration of the lifting of the stay from 10 to 30 days or until the Quarry is fully dewatered, whichever comes first. To address the remainder of the motion, the Parties agreed to a schedule for the exchange of materials. They also agreed that the motion would be completed in writing and that any cross-examinations of affiants would be conducted during the main Hearing of the Appeal, which was scheduled to commence on May 19, 2015.

8On May 13, 2015, the Permit Holder filed a revised notice of motion changing the relief sought from a request for a review of the April Order to a request to amend conditions in the April Order.

9On May 19, 2015, the main Hearing of the appeal was commenced. Evidence for the main hearing, along with cross-examinations of affiants for this motion, were concluded on May 23, 2015. The filing of written submissions for the motion was completed on May 29, 2015. Final oral submissions in the main Hearing are scheduled for June 16, 2015.

Relevant Legislation and Rule

10Ontario Water Resources Act

102 (3) The Tribunal shall not stay the operation of a direction, order, report or decision if doing so would result in,

(a) danger to the health or safety of any person;

(b) impairment or serious risk of impairment of any waters or any use of waters; or

(c) injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property or to any plant or animal life.

Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (the “Tribunal’s Rules”)

110. The Party shall provide evidence and submissions in support of its motion respecting:

(a) how the relevant statutory tests that are applicable to the granting or removal of a stay are met;

(b) whether there is a serious issue to be decided by the Tribunal;

(c) whether irreparable harm will ensue if the relief is not granted; and

(d) whether the balance of convenience, including effects on the public interest, favours granting the relief requested.

Issue

11The issue is:

1. Whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to amend the April Order, taking into account the requirements set out in Rule 110 of the Tribunal’s Rules for the granting/removal of a stay.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

Evidence and Submissions of the Permit Holder

12The Permit Holder states that the April Order was intended to allow accumulated precipitation on the Quarry floor to be entirely drained so as to allow the Permit Holder to safely operate in the Quarry. The Permit Holder states that when the 2015 spring thaw concluded in April, the volume of precipitation that had accumulated on the Quarry’s floor was greater than the Permit Holder had expected when the earlier stay motion was argued. The Permit Holder states that despite 10 days of dewatering as permitted by the April Order, the fourth lift of the Quarry, which is the main area being quarried, remains submerged. It states that the amount of water that accumulated in the Quarry rose from 25 million litres in March to approximately 55 million litres at the end of April 2015. It estimates that taking into account additional precipitation that was expected in May 2015, approximately 64 million litres of water will need to be removed to drain the Quarry of water.

13The Permit Holder states that these figures were not available in March at the time of the hearing of the original motion because the spring melt had not ended and additional precipitation had not been taken into account.

14Charles Demill provided affidavit evidence in support of the motion on behalf of the Permit Holder. Mr. Demill states that unless additional days are added to the time provided to remove the water in the Quarry, the Permit Holder “will suffer the irreparable harm that the decision of the Tribunal intended to avoid.” He adds that unless the April Order is amended, “the intent of the Tribunal will be frustrated.”

15In a letter attached to Mr. Demill’s affidavit, the Permit Holder’s geo-scientist, Brian King, states that there will be no risk to the environment or private well users if the April Order is varied to allow 64 million litres of dewatering. He states that this is because the additional water is of the same nature as that already permitted to be pumped under the April Order (spring melt water and precipitation) and not water being drawn from the aquifer.

16The Permit Holder submits that the balance of convenience favours a further lifting of the stay. It argues that the Appellant has presented no evidence that past dewatering at the Quarry has had any impact on surrounding wells or the environment and that the Appellant has solely raised concerns that the available scientific data is inadequate, which the Permit Holder argues is an insufficient reason to deny lifting the stay.

Evidence and Submissions of the Appellant

17The Appellant states that the April Order partially lifted the stay for a 10-day period and was premised on the grounds that the water-taking would be limited to a short duration and that appropriate conditions were imposed to address any risks associated with this dewatering. The Appellant states that it is opposed to the Permit Holder’s request to amend the April Order to extend the duration of dewatering due to: (1) the potential impacts of longer-term pumping on nearby domestic wells and the environment; (2) the timing of the main hearing; (3) the imminent expiration of the PTTW; and (4) the fact that the Permit Holder has applied for a new PTTW for dewatering after the PTTW under appeal expires on June 30, 2015.

18The Appellant provides evidence questioning: (1) the Permit Holder’s current estimate of the volume of water in the Quarry; (2) the Permit Holder’s ability to undertake the proposed dewatering over a short period due to limits set in its Environmental Compliance Approval (issued pursuant to s. 53 of the OWRA) for the discharge of water outside the spring melt period; (3) the suitability of the April Order’s conditions for a longer term dewatering as proposed by the Permit Holder; and (4) the Permit Holder’s efforts to mitigate any harm by undertaking water conservation measures. It also raises concerns regarding the Permit Holder’s history of non-compliance with previous PTTW requirements. The Appellant states that its concerns arising from these issues are that the proposed dewatering “may well pose unacceptable risks to the natural environment and private well users in the area.”

19The Appellant also questions the Permit Holder’s assertions of irreparable harm. In her affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Appellant, Susan Munro challenges whether the Permit Holder continues to suffer irreparable harm. She states that on April 21, 2015 the Permit Holder conducted blasting and aggregate crushing operations at the Quarry. She states that there was further blasting on May 15, 2015 and that the Appellant “finds it difficult to accept [the Permit Holder’s] claims of economic hardship or immediate shut-down due to accumulated water within the Quarry.”

20The Appellant refers to Limoges v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), [2007] O.E.R.T.D. No. 14, at para. 60, to argue that the Permit Holder must demonstrate that irreparable harm would occur and provide specific evidence of such. The Appellant submits that the Permit Holder has produced no financial information to indicate that it will suffer irreparable harm. It submits that the recent operations at the Quarry and the failure of the Permit Holder to mitigate the impacts of the water it seeks to remove shows that it is not suffering from such harm.

21Regarding the weighing of the balance of convenience, the Appellant submits that the Tribunal must assess the different types of harm that each of the parties will suffer should the stay be lifted and consider the public interest. The Appellant submits that weighing its concerns over the estimated volume of water in the Quarry, operational constraints that could prolong the dewatering, and the impacts of an amendment to the April Order, on the one hand, and the recent operations at the Quarry, lack of mitigation measures, absence of financial information showing irreparable harm, and compliance history on the other hand, does not favour the varying of the April Order as requested by the Permit Holder.

Findings

22On this request to amend the April Order, the Tribunal will consider the relevant statutory test and the RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (“RJR-MacDonald”) three-pronged test, as described in Rule 110 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

The Relevant Statutory Test – s. 102(3) of the OWRA

23The relevant statutory test is s. 102(3) of the OWRA. It precludes the Tribunal from issuing, or in this case lifting, a stay if it would result in danger to the health or safety or any person, impairment or serious risk of impairment of the quality of any waters or any use of waters, or result in injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property or to any plant or animal life. In the April Order, the Tribunal found that although lifting the stay could result in significant environmental harm to the quantity and quality of water as a result of the operation of the PTTW, particularly over the long-term, there was insufficient evidence to show that lifting of the stay pending the disposition of the appeal would result in a serious risk of impairment of any waters or any use of waters. The Tribunal stated at para. 23:

The Tribunal may not lift the stay if there would be a serious risk of impairment to waters or the use of waters. The Tribunal finds that although the Appellant has shown there could be significant environmental harm to the quantity and quality of water as a result of the operations permitted under the PTTW, particularly over the long-term, it has not established that the lifting of the stay for the short period pending the disposition of the appeal would result in a serious risk of impairment of any waters or any use of waters. The Tribunal reaches this conclusion taking into account that the water taking would be limited to a short duration to remove the existing water on the floor of the Quarry and provided that appropriate conditions are put in place to effectively address any risks. The Tribunal therefore finds that it is not precluded under s. 102(3) of the OWRA from lifting the stay of the PTTW.

24There was no new evidence presented on the motion to amend the April Order to suggest that a stay extension would result in such harm, or the risk of such harm, as contemplated by s. 102(3) if the lifting of the stay is extended for a short period of time. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it is not precluded from issuing an amendment extending the duration of the lifting of the stay for a short period.

The RJR-MacDonald Test

25As in the previous motion, the Tribunal must also consider the three-pronged test set out in RJR-MacDonald inquiring whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether irreparable harm will be caused if the stay is not lifted, and where the balance of convenience lies.

Serious Issue to be Tried

26As in the earlier stay motion, the Appellant does not contest that there is a serious issue to be tried in the appeal. The Tribunal finds that this first part of the RJR-MacDonald test is met.

Irreparable Harm

27The second factor in the RJR-MacDonald test is whether the Permit Holder will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not lifted. As stated in RJR-MacDonald, “irreparable” refers to the nature, rather than the magnitude, of the harm that would be suffered by the Permit Holder if the stay were not lifted.

28In the earlier motion, the Permit Holder asserted that the stay would force it to cease operations and that there were no other entities from which it could recover the losses it would incur by complying with the stay. Mr. Demill stated at paras. 15-16 and 42 of his affidavit, sworn on February 25, 2015, supporting the earlier motion:

… From my many years of experience with the quarry, and particularly in spring weather conditions, I can state with certainty and without hesitation that the approaching spring flooding will result in a complete stop of quarry operations.

The present threat of flooding for Demill is not theoretical, but very real and imminent. It is not a hypothetical or potential outcome, but a threat that impacts Demill’s very survival. Simply put, following the spring thaw, Demill cannot operate a quarry under water. For this reason, I have asked that our lawyers seek leave to have the stay lifted in order that the sump pump may be operated at a level that will remove sufficient water to continue quarrying operations.

As is explained in greater detail below, if Demill is not allowed to resume water takings, it will be forced to let its staff go and will default on a number of significant outstanding contracts. The net result is that Demill will likely cease operations permanently.

If the stay is not immediately lifted, the spring thaw will bring an end to our operations. The business cannot operate without revenue, nor will it be able to sustain the inevitable claims that will result when it defaults on existing supply contracts. In the final analysis the damages it faces are irreparable, as there is no party or fund it can look to for compensation.

29Based on the Permit Holder’s submissions that it would need to cease operations and that these losses could not be cured, the Tribunal found in the April Order that the Permit Holder would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were not lifted.

30The Permit Holder’s evidence in the present motion indicates that the alleged irreparable harm was reduced, at least in part, by the April Order. Mr. Demill stated in his supplementary affidavit, sworn on May 19, 2015:

There are limited quantities of aggregate stockpiled in the quarry that are now available. However, Demill has been unable to blast and process any aggregate this year in the fourth lift, and unless the remaining water is removed, will be unable to do so. The current stockpiles will be depleted quickly and unless aggregate processing resumes immediately, Demill will soon be out of aggregate and will shut down completely once again.

31In its submissions, the Permit Holder submits:

The evidence before the Tribunal at the motion was that existing aggregate piles existed. Those piles are now (after the 10 day dewatering) available and sales and crushing can occur. Blasting of material not under water can also occur; what cannot occur is the dewatering of the fourth lift and the creation of stockpiles of aggregate needed to avoid closing the business down when it cannot fill orders in the coming months.

32It further states in its reply submissions:

Minor blasting of residual pockets of aggregate does not diminish the magnitude of harm. It is also improper to allege that irreparable harm has not been suffered because Demill is now able to access stockpiled aggregate and continue crushing operations after the 10 day dewatering period. The point of dewatering ordered by the Tribunal was to allow Demill to operate and access these stockpiles; arguing that this diminishes the irreparable harm is inconsistent with the order and based on no direct evidence.

The clear evidence of Charles Demill is that blasting or processing of aggregate has not and cannot occur in the fourth lift, which is the remaining operative lift in the quarry. Aggregate must be processed now, in order to fulfill contracts in the future. Evidence of some quarrying activity does not diminish the uncontradicted evidence of Charles Demill that irreparable harm, has and will continue to occur.

33The Permit Holder’s evidence is that due to the 10-day dewatering permitted under the April Order, it can undertake some limited operations over the short term; but it argues that in any event it is suffering irreparable harm due to its inability to undertake operations in the fourth lift of the Quarry. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Permit Holder is suffering irreparable harm, but not the same magnitude of harm as was alleged at the time of the earlier motion. As noted in RJR-MacDonald, it is not the magnitude of the harm but the nature of the harm that is of relevance under the second prong of the RJR-MacDonald test. As such, the Tribunal finds that the Permit Holder is suffering irreparable harm due to the stay preventing it from removing the water accumulated on the Quarry floor.

Balance of Convenience

34The third prong of the RJR-MacDonald test requires the Tribunal to determine the balance of convenience, focusing on which of the parties will suffer the greater harm if the stay is lifted pending the conclusion of the appeal. In evaluating the balance of convenience, the Tribunal is to consider the public interest.

35In the April Order, the Tribunal concluded that a short-term lifting of the stay on conditions would not cause any serious risk of harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the lifting of the stay. The Tribunal stated at para. 31:

The Tribunal finds that the balance of convenience favours the lifting of the stay for a limited time period, pending the hearing of the appeal, which is scheduled to begin next month. At that time, a full consideration of the evidence and issues in dispute can take place. While it is in the public interest to protect the water resources that are the subject matter of the appeal, the balance of convenience favours the Permit Holder in these circumstances. As noted above, there is no serious risk of impairment from a time-limited lifting of the stay to remove the existing water in the Quarry. What the Appellant has shown is that there could be harm, particularly over the long-term. It has not shown that there will be impairment or serious risk of impairment of waters in the short-term (i.e., harm during the short period between now and the upcoming hearing and disposition of the appeal). It has, however, demonstrated that there is some residual risk in the short-term.

The Tribunal found that the imposition of conditions to the lifting of the stay would mitigate any residual risk to waters over the short-term of 10 days.

36The Permit Holder argues that the rationale in the April Order for allowing the dewatering applies equally to the Permit Holder’s request to extend the time period for dewatering on this motion. It submits that its proposed extension of the lifting of the stay poses no serious risk to the natural environment or to private well users.

37The Appellant disagrees. It states that the stay was partially lifted subject to strict conditions. It submits that the conditions necessary for the dewatering of 64 million litres are different from those for 25 million litres. In his affidavit prepared for the present motion, Mr. Pyke states:

The implications of such a dramatic difference in volume estimates, if properly established would have necessitated at the time of the stay motion examining different considerations than were examined with respect to potential environmental impacts to well-users, water-dependent ecological features, implementation of programs for monitoring and contingency measures, and related issues. Because there were no volume estimates in the Demill stay material of the magnitude now being posited in the King letter, neither Mr. King nor I addressed such matters in our respective materials for the stay motion and, therefore, they are not reflected in the conditions imposed by Member Wilkins in his April 24, 2015 order.

38The Appellant also states that the Permit Holder’s Environmental Compliance Approval governing the amount of water that may be discharged from the Quarry must not exceed more than eight hours of discharge per day, except during spring thaw and melt water conditions for which discharges may continue for 24 hours per day. It states that if most of the water that is presently in the Quarry is from precipitation, then the time it will take the Permit Holder to dewater the Quarry and discharge the water will take several weeks or months. Mr. Pyke states that prolonged dewatering “would constitute a potentially significant environmental problem” and that such an operation would require “major amendments to monitoring, contingency, and related measures that are not currently reflected in the April 24, 2015 order of Member Wilkins.”

39The Tribunal found in the April Order that by imposing conditions limiting the duration and volume of the water taking and ensuring adequate monitoring, recording and reporting as well as contingency planning, the public interest was addressed through the preservation of groundwater quality and quantity while harm to the Permit Holder was minimized. In the present motion, the evidence is different. The evidence before the Tribunal on this motion is that the magnitude of alleged irreparable harm to the Permit Holder is less than previously alleged and the amount of water to be removed is considerably greater. A fundamental condition in the April Order was that the dewatering would be limited to a short duration of 10 days. On the present motion, the Appellant has raised concerns that the relief requested would entail a prolonged dewatering period.

40The Tribunal notes that the April Order permitted the removal of significantly more water than was actually removed by the Permit Holder. The April Order stated that the Permit Holder was to comply with all requirements set out in the PTTW. This includes the maximum amount of water permitted to be removed per day, which the PTTW sets as 3,945,600 litres for snowmelt, run-off and rainfall events. Over a period of 10 days during the spring, this amounts to almost 39,500,000 litres of water that could have been removed.

41The Permit Holder’s evidence is that approximately 16,385,000 litres of water were removed during the lifting of the stay under the April Order. Given that the April Order allowed for the removal of up to an additional 23,000,000 litres of water beyond what was removed, the Tribunal extends the lifting of the stay for an additional 10 days to permit the Permit Holder to remove an additional 23,000,000 litres of water. Based on the evidence presented to the Tribunal, this extension is in the public interest as it remains of a short enough duration to avoid the longer-term risks identified by the Appellant and through the application of the fundamental conditions set in the April Order will continue to address any residual risks over the short term. The 10 days of pumping may be conducted over 10 consecutive days or intermittently, but must be concluded by the date of the expiry of the PTTW on June 30, 2015.

ORDER

42The Permit Holder’s motion to amend the April Order is partially granted on the following conditions:

a) the stay is lifted for a further period of 10 days that will allow the Permit Holder to remove a maximum of an additional 23 million litres of water from the Quarry. The dewatering need not be over a consecutive period of 10 days if equipment failures, or other stoppages, occur that interrupt the dewatering process. This extension expires on June 30, 2015, the date of the expiry of the PTTW. The Permit Holder shall not re-commence dewatering hereunder until the written plan referred to in subparagraph (i) below is submitted to the MOECC (with a copy to the Tribunal and the Appellant);

b) the Permit Holder will comply with all requirements set out in the PTTW and its schedules unless they conflict with any of the conditions set out in this Order, in which case the conditions in this Order prevail;

c) before commencing the further water taking at the Quarry pursuant to this order, the Permit Holder shall obtain a representative sample of water from the Quarry sump and arrange to have that sample assessed and analysed for all parameters listed in para. 4.3.3. of the PTTW’s approved monitoring programme, document the volume of water present in the Quarry, confirm the volume of anticipated dewatering, measure the water levels in the three representative wells identified in the approved monitoring programme, and immediately provide the resulting data to the MOECC;

d) the Permit Holder shall monitor the Quarry for groundwater seepage every eight hours during the water taking, record any observations of seepage, and immediately provide the resulting data to the MOECC;

e) the Permit Holder shall undertake manual private well monitoring, as described in the PTTW’s approved monitoring programme, at the commencement of the water taking and then five days and ten days after the commencement of the water taking and after the tenth day, every five days thereafter until the water taking ceases. The data derived from this monitoring shall be provided to the MOECC immediately after it is obtained;

f) over the course of the water taking, the Permit Holder will ensure that three representative wells in close proximity to the Quarry, as described in the PTTW’s approved monitoring programme, will be instrumented with programmable water level measuring and recording devices (dataloggers) that will collect data every six hours and that the data derived from these devices will be immediately provided to the well owner(s) and the MOECC;

g) prior to the commencement of the water taking hereunder, the Permit Holder will ensure that the representative wells referred to in subparagraph (f) above will be sampled and that the data derived from the sampling will be immediately provided to the well owner(s) and the MOECC;

h) the Permit Holder will apply measurable trigger mechanisms to the PTTW’s contingency plan; and

i) the Permit Holder will provide the MOECC (with a copy to the Tribunal and the Appellant) with a written plan prior to the dewatering outlining timelines and methodologies relating to the implementation of the conditions set out above.

Stay Lifted in Part

Motion Granted in Part

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document,

please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Environmental Review Tribunal

A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario

Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248