Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: October 23, 2015
CASE NO.: 15-066
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.15-066)
Appellant: William Ernest Young (File No. 15-067)
Approval Holder: Majestic Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Majestic Wind Power LP
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Renewable Energy Approval for the Majestic Wind Farm
Reference No.: 0103-9W7RMR
Property Address/Description: RR 3, Tiverton, Part South, Plan 33287-0117
Municipality: Municipality of Kincardine
Upper Tier: County of Bruce
ERT Case No.: 15-066
ERT Case Name: Hutton v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Patti Hutton and William Ernest Young
Counsel
Priya Vittal
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Andrew Weretelnyk
Majestic Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Majestic Wind Power LP
Scott Stoll and Jody Johnson
DECISION DELIVERED BY JUSTIN DUNCAN
REASONS
Background
1On July 13, 2015, Mohsen Keyvani, Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued Renewable Energy Approval No. 0103-9W7RMR (“REA”) to Majestic Wind Power (GP) Inc. o/a Majestic Wind Power LP, granting approval for the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 3 wind facility with a total name plate capacity of 2.0 megawatts (“Project”). The Project is to be located at R.R. No. 3, Tiverton, Part South, Plan 33287-0117, in the Municipality of Kincardine, Bruce County, Ontario.
2On July 24, 2015, Patti Hutton and William Ernest Young (“Appellants”) filed a written notice requiring a hearing respecting the REA with the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on the grounds that the Project will cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.
3A preliminary hearing took place on September 4, 2015 at which time the Bruce Energy Centre withdrew its request for status on the appeal and the Tribunal set a date for the continuation of the preliminary hearing to proceed by way of teleconference call (“TCC”). During the TCC on September 17, 2015, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had settled the appeal and would send confirmation in writing.
4On September 21, 2015, the Tribunal received communication from counsel for the Appellants, on behalf of all the parties, advising that the parties had reached a settlement of the appeal. As part of the settlement, the parties have agreed that the appeal be withdrawn and that the REA should not be altered.
Discussion and Analysis
5Rule 199 of the Rules of Practice of the Environmental Review Tribunal is applicable in this context. It provides:
- Where there has been a proposed withdrawal of an appeal agreed to by all Parties and the decision under appeal is not altered by a settlement agreement, a proposed withdrawal of an application, or a proposed revocation of an order made under section 74 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Tribunal shall issue a decision dismissing the proceeding.
6As a result of the agreement of the parties that the appeal be withdrawn and the fact that the REA will not be altered by this agreement, Rule 199 requires that the Tribunal dismiss the Appellants’ appeal.
DECISION
7Pursuant to Rule 199, the Appellants’ appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed
“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