Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: November 26, 2015
CASE NO.: 15-032
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 129(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32, as amended
Appellant: William Mundy
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Refusal of a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate under O. Reg. 128/04 and O. Reg. 129/04
ERT Case No.: 15-032
ERT Case Name: Mundy v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: August 26 and October 16, 2015 by telephone conference call and in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Katie Clements
William Mundy
Self-represented
DECISION DELIVERED BY HEATHER MCLEOD-KILMURRAY AND HUGH S. WILKINS
REASONS
Background
1On April 9, 2015, Brian Gildner, Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, issued a decision letter refusing to grant a Class 3 Water Treatment Certificate to William Mundy (the “Appellant”), pursuant to Schedule 2 of Ontario Regulation 128/04 “Certification of Drinking Water System Operators and Water Quality Analysts” (the “Regulation”) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32. The Director refused to issue the certificate based on his finding that the Appellant does not have sufficient “operator-in-charge” experience to meet the requirements in Schedule 2 of the Regulation for the issuance of the requested certificate.
2On April 30, 2015, the Appellant appealed the Director’s decision to the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). The Appellant argued that the Director’s interpretation of the term “operator-in-charge” does not align with the use of the term in the Regulation and that he has sufficient experience to meet the qualifications for the certificate.
3On August 26, 2015, the Tribunal held a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call (“TCC”) at which it set due dates for the exchange of documents and filing of witness statements and documents to be relied on at the main hearing and set hearing dates.
4On October 16, 2015, the preliminary hearing was continued by TCC. During the call, the Director indicated his intention of bringing a motion for disclosure of relevant documents from the Appellant. The Tribunal set dates for the exchange of motion materials and for the hearing of the motion and postponed the previously set dates for the main hearing.
5On October 26, 2015, the Tribunal received email correspondence from the Appellant indicating that he would like to withdraw his appeal and on November 6, 2015, the Tribunal received email correspondence from the Director stating that he does not object to a withdrawal of the appeal.
Relevant Rule
6Rules of Practice of the Tribunal:
- 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.
Discussions, Analysis and Findings
7The parties agree to the proposed withdrawal of the appeal and the Tribunal finds that the decision under appeal is not altered within the meaning of Rule 199 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the proceeding should be dismissed.
DECISION
8Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Dismissed
“Heather McLeod-Kilmurray”
HEATHER MCLEOD-KILMURRAY
MEMBER
“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