VPA Group Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2015 CanLII 85979

ISSUE DATE:

December 14, 2015

CASE NO.:

09-128

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended

Appellant:

VPA Group Inc.

Respondent:

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal:

Order to cease to make use of the site

Reference No.:

6261-7UWR78-1

Property Address/Description:

2380 Loreland Avenue, Part Lot 3, Concession 1 SDS, Part Lot 4, Concession 1 SDS, Parts 2-5, 28-34, RP 43R-15013

Municipality:

City of Mississauga

Upper Tier:

Region of Peel

ERT Case No.:

09-128

ERT Case Name:

VPA Group Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

Heard:

November 10 and 30, 2015 by telephone conference call and in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative⁺

VPA Group Inc.

Neil Kredentser

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Nadine Harris

ORDER DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS

REASONS

Background

1On October 22, 2009, VPA Group Inc. (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding Director’s Order No. 6261-7UWR78-1 (the “Director’s Order”) issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (the “Ministry”), on October 7, 2009 under s. 157.3(5) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”). The Director’s Order requires the Appellant to cease using a former waste disposal site located at 2380 Loreland Avenue, Mississauga, Ontario (the “Site”) and to remove all vehicles and associated equipment from the Site.

2Further background to this proceeding is set out in the Tribunal’s Orders dated February 8, 2010, May 20, 2011, and September 4, 2014, which set dates for the hearing and the exchange of documents, stayed the Director’s Order pending the disposition of the appeal, and adjourned hearing dates.

3Throughout 2014 and 2015, the Tribunal held telephone conference calls (“TCCs”) during which the parties provided updates on progress in satisfying the work items in the Director’s Order. During a TCC on September 25, 2015, the Tribunal set dates for hearing the appeal and also encouraged the parties to continue settlement discussions. During TCCs on November 10 and November 30, 2015, the Tribunal was advised by counsel that the parties had reached an agreement to request an adjournment of the hearing based on specific conditions.

Issue

4The issue is whether the Tribunal should grant an adjournment of the hearing based on the conditions proposed by the parties.

Relevant Rules

5Rules of Practice of the Tribunal:

In deciding whether or not to grant a request for an adjournment, the Tribunal may consider:

(a) the interests of the Parties in a full and fair Hearing;

(b) the interests of others potentially affected by the matters before the Tribunal who, after notification of the Hearing, may have arranged their affairs in the expectation of observing or participating in the Hearing;

(d) the circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment;

(e) the timeliness of the request for the adjournment;

(f) the position of the other Parties on the adjournment request;

(g) whether an adjournment will cause or contribute to any existing or potential risk of environmental harm;

(h) the consequences of an adjournment, including expenses to other Parties;

(i) the effect of an adjournment on Participants and Presenters;

(j) the public interest in the delivery of the Tribunal’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner; and

(k) whether the proceeding before the Tribunal is an appeal of a renewable energy approval under section 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

In granting an adjournment, the Tribunal may impose such conditions as it considers appropriate.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

6The parties have requested an adjournment of the hearing, on consent, subject to the conditions as detailed in the Order below. Having considered the factors set out in Rule 105 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to grant an adjournment, subject to the proposed conditions.

7The Tribunal further directs the parties to provide the Tribunal with an update on progress of the site restoration work at a TCC to be held on January 21, 2016 at 10 a.m.

ORDER

8The Tribunal orders that the hearing of the appeal scheduled for February 8 to 10, 2016 is adjourned subject to the following conditions:

a. the Appellant initiate a slope stability study at the Site forthwith;

b. by January 11, 2016, the Appellant complete the site stability study and provide written confirmation to the Director and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (the “TRCA”) that the study has been completed;

c. by January 29, 2016, the Appellant provide confirmation to the Director and the TRCA that it has retained a contractor to complete site restoration work as per permit No. C-140584/1509439 issued by the TRCA on August 27, 2014, along with a schedule for the work, including anticipated start and completion dates;

d. the Appellant start site restoration as soon as the weather allows in the Spring 2016 and provide written notification to the Director and the TRCA of the start of the work;

e. by June 15, 2016, the Appellant complete the site restoration work;

f. the Appellant notify the Ministry and the TRCA forthwith upon completion of the site restoration work; and

g. by July 15, 2016, the Appellant provide updated documentation of site conditions to the Director and the TRCA so that the application process under s. 46 of the EPA can be resumed.

Request for Adjournment Granted

Procedural Directions Ordered

“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