Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: December 2, 2015
CASE NO.: 14-056
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 100(4) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as amended
Appellant: Henry Skritek (ERT Case No. 14-056)
Appellant: 344827 Ontario Limited (ERT Case No. 14-057)
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Order issued under section 16.4(5) of the Ontario Water Resources Act to perform work with respect to sewage.
Reference No.: 3053-8XWL4V-3
Property Address/Description: 1060 and 1061 Wigwam Lodge Road and adjacent road allowances
Municipality: Gravenhurst
Upper Tier: District Municipality of Muskoka
ERT Case No.: 14-056
ERT Case Name: Skritek v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: October 1, 2015 by telephone conference call and in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Henry Skritek and 344827 Ontario Limited Counsel/Representative Dylan Scott
Parties Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Counsel/Representative Katie Clements
Participants Jackie and Greg Keeling Counsel/Representative Jackie Keeling
Presenter Kahshe Lake Ratepayers’ Association (1994) Inc. Counsel/Representative Ron Pearson
DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT V. WRIGHT
REASONS
Background
1On July 10, 2014 Henry Skritek and 344827 Ontario Limited (the “Appellant(s)”) filed requests for a hearing by the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to s. 100 of the OWRA, respecting order No. 3053-8XWL4V-3 (the “Amended Order”) made on June 30, 2014 by Cindy Hood, District Manager, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) under s. 16.4(5) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40 (the “OWRA”). The Amended Order requires the Appellants to perform work with respect to sewage works at 1060 and 1061 Wigwam Lodge Road and adjacent road allowances in Gravenhurst, District Municipality of Muskoka (the “Site”).
2The preliminary hearing for the appeals was held on November 6, 2014. The hearing started on April 7, 2015, but was adjourned and the Amended Order stayed until October 31, 2015, on consent, to facilitate the parties’ settlement negotiations. Addional background information regarding the preliminary hearing and the adjournment of the hearing is contained in the Tribunal’s orders dated December 23, 2014 and July 16, 2015.
3The preliminary hearing continued by a telephone conference call on October 1, 2015, in which the parties advised the Tribunal that they had agreed to a settlement of the appeals. On the call the participants and the presenter indicated that they would not oppose the settlement. By letter dated November 13, 2015, counsel for the Director provided background information (set out below) and joint submissions of the parties regarding the proposed settlement, which would include revocation of the Amended Order. By emails to the Tribunal dated November 23, 2015, the participants and the presenter confirmed that they have no objection to the settlement.
Relevant Legislation and Rules
4The following are the relevant provisions of the OWRA and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (the “Rule(s)”):
Purpose 0.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the conservation, protection and management of Ontario’s waters and for their efficient and sustainable use, in order to promote Ontario’s long-term environmental, social and economic well-being.
Rules of the Tribunal
Termination of Proceedings 202. Where a Director, a Risk Management Inspector or Official or a municipality proposes to revoke the decision that is the subject of an appeal, the Tribunal shall consider whether the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the relevant legislation and whether the proposed revocation is in the public interest. The Tribunal shall also consider the interests of Parties, Participants and Presenters. After the consideration of the above factors, the Tribunal may decide to continue with the Hearing or issue a decision dismissing the proceeding.
Issue
5The issue is whether the Amended Order should be revoked and the proceeding dismissed, or whether the hearing should continue.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
6By letter dated November 13, 2015, Katie Clements, counsel for the Director, advised the Tribunal that the parties jointly submit that the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose of the OWRA and is in the public interest for the following reasons:
the Appellants replaced the original sewage works that were the subject of the Amended Order with a new sewage system under the Ontario Building Code (the “OBC”);
the Appellant corporation applied for and was issued a permit to contstruct a sewage system under the OBC, the design capacity of which is under 10,000 L;
new components were installed as part of the construction of the new sewage system;
the leaching bed form the original sewage works remains as part of the new system;
the Appellants had the leaching bed cleaned in May 2015;
on September 14, 2015, the Appellant corporation was issued a Final Inspection Report from the municality of the Town of Gravenhurst (the “Town”) approving the use of the new sewage system under the OBC (the “use permit”);
in issuing the use permit, the Town considered a professional engineer’s report with respect to the condition of the leaching bed, submitted by the Appellant corporation;
the Appellants obtained a demolition permit and removed all sewage works components, pipes, plumbing and electrical wiring from the Shore Road Allowance, which is immediately adjacent to Lake Kahshe; and
the Appellant corporation applied for revocation of its Certificate of Approval for a sewage works issued on July 6, 1974. The MOECC revoked the Ceriticate of Approval on September 28, 2015.
7The Tribunal has considered the above information, the parties’ submissions, and the interests of the participants and the presenter, and finds that the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the OWRA and in the public interest. After considering these factors, the Tribunal revokes the Amended Order and dismisses the appeals pursuant to Tribunal Rule 202.
8The Tribunal commends the parties for their successful efforts to resolve this proceeding.
DECISION
9The Amended Order is revoked against the Appellants and the appeals are dismissed.
Director’s Order Revoked
Appeals Dismissed
“Robert V. Wright”
ROBERT V. WRIGHT
VICE-CHAIR
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