Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: March 11, 2016
CASE NO.: 15-038
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended
Appellant: Garry Swagerman (ERT Case No.: 15-038)
Appellant: Mary Anne Swagerman (ERT Case No.: 15-039)
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Order to complete an environmental investigation programme including a vapour assessment
Reference No.: 2156-9W3SPK-1
Property Address/Description: 6 Thomas Street / 52 Simcoe Road
Municipality: Bradford West Gwillimbury
Upper Tier: County of Simcoe
ERT Case No.: 15-038
ERT Case Name: Swagerman v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: By telephone conference call on February 16 and 18, 2016 and in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative+
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Justin Jacob
Garry Swagerman and Mary Anne Swagerman
Self-represented
Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury
Zoë Thoms
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS
REASONS
Background
1On May 19, 2015, the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (the “MOECC”) issued Order No. 2156-9W3SPK-1 (the “Order”) to Garry Swagerman, Mary Anne Swagerman (the “Appellants”) and 1493243 Ontario Limited requiring the completion of an environmental investigation programme, including a vapour assessment, to determine the extent of contamination at and in the vicinity of 6 Thomas Street / 52 Simcoe Road, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Ontario (the “Site”) and assess the potential for adverse effects in relation to the contamination. Garry and Mary Anne Swagerman own the Site and operated a dry cleaning facility there from the mid-1980s until 2001. 1493243 Ontario Limited purchased the dry cleaning business in 2001 and has operated it since then.
2On May 27, 2015, the Appellants appealed the Order.
3A preliminary hearing was held in Bond Head, Ontario on July 27, 2015. At the preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) granted party status to the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury (the “Town”). Status update telephone conference calls (“TCCs”) were subsequently held on September 21, October 21, November 26, 2015 and February 16 and 18, 2016, while the Appellants worked to comply with the Order.
4During the TCC on February 16, 2016, the Director stated that the Appellants had now complied with the Order.
5On the February 18, 2016 TCC, the Appellants stated their intention to withdraw their appeals and the Director and the Town indicated that they agreed to the proposed withdrawals. The Appellants’ request to withdraw their appeals and the Director’s and Town’s agreement to this were confirmed in writing on February 19, 2016.
Issue
6The issue is whether the proposed withdrawal of the appeals should be accepted and the appeals dismissed.
Relevant Rules
7Tribunal Rules of Practice (the “Rules”):
Termination of Proceedings
A Proponent or Applicant who proposes to withdraw his or her application, an Appellant who proposes to withdraw his or her appeal, or a Director, a Risk Management Inspector or Official or a municipality who proposes to revoke the decision that is the subject of the appeal shall notify the Tribunal, other Parties, Participants and Presenters by letter. Any Party, Participant or Presenter who objects to the proposed withdrawal of an appeal or revocation, with the exception of the revocation of an order made under section 74 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, shall notify the Tribunal and the other Parties, Participants and Presenters within ten days of the date of the letter.
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.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
8By operation of Rule 199, the Tribunal shall dismiss an appeal where there has been a proposed withdrawal that has been agreed to by all parties, and the decision under appeal is not altered.
9The parties have confirmed with the Tribunal in writing that they consent to the withdrawal of the appeals. The Tribunal also notes that the Director’s Order under appeal is not altered in any way.
10On the basis of what the parties have stated and their agreement, the Tribunal finds that Rule 199 applies. The Tribunal accepts the withdrawals and dismisses the appeals.
DECISION
11The appeals of the Director’s Order No. 2156-9W3SPK-1 brought by Garry and Mary Anne Swagerman are dismissed.
Appeals Withdrawn
Appeals Dismissed
“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