Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: August 17, 2015
CASE NO.: 15-041
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 142.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended
Appellant: Patti Hutton (File No.15-041)
Appellant: William Ernest Young (File No. 15-042)
Approval Holder: Meyer Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Meyer Wind Power LP
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Renewable Energy Approval for Meyer Wind Farm
Reference No.: 0682-9TGSHV
Property Address/Description: RR 3, Tiverton, Part South, Plan 33287-0115
Municipality: Municipality of Kincardine
Upper Tier: County of Bruce
ERT Case No.: 15-041
ERT Case Name: Hutton v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: August 14, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Patti Hutton and William Ernest Young | Priya Vittal |
| Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change | Andrew Weretelnyk |
| Meyer Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Meyer Wind Power LP | Scott Stoll and Mark Strychar-Bodnar (Student-at-law) |
ORDER DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN AND JUSTIN DUNCAN
ORDER
1The Tribunal directs Patti Hutton and William Ernest Young (the “Appellants”) to advise Meyer Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Meyer Wind Power LP (the “Approval Holder”) and the Director, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change which matters raised in their notice of appeal remain in issue and which matters will no longer be pursued on the appeal by August 24, 2015.
2The Tribunal grants the Approval Holder’s motion for particulars and dismisses the motion to strike paragraphs 31 to 37 of the Appellants’ notice of appeal. Specifically, the Tribunal:
a. Grants the Approval Holder’s motion for particulars on the health issues and orders the Appellants to serve and file the following particulars by August 24, 2015 on those matters that remain in issue:
i. the specific nature and kind of harm to human health that is alleged will occur as a result of the project under appeal;
ii. who will be harmed, and in what ways by the project under appeal;
iii. the Appellants’ position as to why the harm to human health is “serious”;
iv. a description of the Appellants’ theory as to “how” the project approved by the REA will cause the serious harm to human health;
v. in referring to other renewable energy projects, the facts and circumstances resulting in serious harm to human health impacts and how the project under appeal will result in similar harms; and
vi. if intending to allege inadequacies, gaps or uncertainties of any law or policies or the implementation of any law or policies related to the project at issue, how those inadequacies, gaps or uncertainties will cause serious harm to human health.
b. Dismisses the Approval Holder’s motion to strike paragraphs 31 to 37 of the notice of appeal relating to environment issues.
Procedural Direction Ordered
Motion for Particulars Granted
Motion to Strike Dismissed
“Marlene Cashin”
MARLENE CASHIN
MEMBER
“Justin Duncan”
JUSTIN DUNCAN
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