Hirsch v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2016 CanLII 24526

Environmental Review Tribunal

Tribunal de l’environnement

ISSUE DATE: April 25, 2016

CASE NO.: 15-068

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 142.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended

Appellant: John Hirsch (File No.15-068)

Appellant: Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (File No.15-069)

Approval Holder: wpd White Pines Wind Incorporated

Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal: Renewable Energy Approval for White Pines Wind Project

Reference No.: 2344-9R6RWR

Municipality: County of Prince Edward

ERT Case No.: 15-068

ERT Case Name: Hirsch v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County

Eric K. Gillespie

John Hirsch

Self-represented

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Sylvia Davis and Rebecca Crangle

wpd White Pines Wind Incorporated

Patrick G. Duffy and James S.F. Wilson

ORDER DELIVERED BY MARCIA VALIANTE AND HUGH S. WILKINS

REASONS

Background

1This is the third in a series of orders issued by the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in relation to motions for a stay of a renewable energy approval for a proposed wind power generation project in Prince Edward County, Ontario.

2The moving party, the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (“APPEC”), seeks a stay of Renewable Energy Approval No. 2344-9R6RWR (the “REA”) until a date to be determined by the Tribunal. The main hearing of the appeal is currently adjourned.

3The REA was issued on July 16, 2015, by Mohsen Keyvani, Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (the “MOECC”) to wpd White Pines Wind Incorporated (the “Approval Holder”). It authorizes the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 4 wind facility consisting of 27 wind turbines, two transformer substations, underground electrical cabling, distribution lines and associated infrastructure (the “Project”). The Project is located near the south shore of Prince Edward County in the area bounded by Brummell Road and Bond Road to the North, Lighthall Road to the West, Gravelly Bay Road to the East, and Lake Ontario to the South (the “Project Area”).

4On July 29, 2015, John Hirsch filed a notice of appeal of the REA with the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 142.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (the “EPA”), seeking revocation of the REA on the grounds that the Project will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life and the natural environment. On July 31, 2015, APPEC filed a notice of appeal with the Tribunal seeking revocation of the REA on the grounds that the Project will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life and the natural environment and will cause serious harm to human health. A third appeal, by the Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy, was withdrawn and dismissed by the Tribunal in an Order dated September 30, 2015.

5The hearing in this proceeding commenced on November 2, 2015 and continued over 21 days in November and December 2015, in Wellington and Picton in Prince Edward County and at the Tribunal’s offices in Toronto, Ontario. On February 26, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Order allowing the appeal in part based on its finding that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment under s. 145.2.1(2) of the EPA (the “February 26 Order”). The Tribunal found that engaging in the Project would cause serious and irreversible harm to Blanding’s Turtle, which is listed as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6 (“ESA”). The Tribunal also gave procedural directions for the hearing of submissions with respect to the appropriate remedy, pursuant to s. 145.2.1(4) of the EPA. The hearing is adjourned and will resume for the Tribunal to consider the parties’ submissions on remedy.

6On March 1, 2016, the Approval Holder notified APPEC and the Director that it intended to start vegetation clearing in parts of the Project Area as early as March 14, 2016 and would continue until April 30. On March 4, 2016, APPEC brought a motion seeking an order of the Tribunal staying all physical activities within the proposed Project Area associated with the REA pending the disposition of the appeals. The motion was based principally on APPEC’s concern that work clearing vegetation and preparing the Project Area by the Approval Holder will cause harm to Blanding’s Turtle. On March 22, 2016, the Tribunal issued an order dismissing APPEC’s motion, with reasons to follow. On April 6, 2016, the Tribunal issued its reasons for that order (the “April 6 Order”), finding that APPEC had not demonstrated that irreparable harm will ensue if the stay was not issued. In its reasons, the Tribunal stated that the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (the “Rules”) do not preclude a party from again seeking the requested relief, should circumstances change in the future.

7On April 4, 2016, APPEC filed an affidavit of Dr. Christina Davy with the Tribunal and asked the Tribunal to issue an order halting work within the Project Area. On April 8, 2016, the Tribunal reminded the parties that it had no motion before it and stated that it would entertain an interim stay motion that day if materials were filed by specified times. This was done and, after a review of the materials submitted to it by the parties, the Tribunal issued an order on April 8, 2016, granting the requested interim relief pending the disposition of the stay motion. Reasons were issued on April 11, 2016 (the “April 11 Interim Stay Order”). Directions were subsequently sent by the Tribunal Case Co-ordinator to the parties setting a schedule for the hearing of the stay motion in writing.

8The filing of materials for the stay motion was completed on April 15, 2016. This order arises from that motion.

Relevant Rule

9Tribunal’s Rules:

110. The Party shall provide evidence and submissions in support of its motion respecting:

(a) how the relevant statutory tests that are applicable to the granting or removal of a stay are met;

(b) whether there is a serious issue to be decided by the Tribunal;

(c) whether irreparable harm will ensue if the relief is not granted; and

(d) whether the balance of convenience, including effects on the public interest, favours granting the relief requested.

Issue

10The issue is whether the REA should be stayed until a date to be fixed by the Tribunal.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

The Test for a Stay

11The test for a stay is summarized in the April 6 Order. Tribunal Rules 110 (b) to (d) reflect the three-part test summarized in RJR-MacDonald Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 (“RJR-MacDonald”) focusing on whether there is a serious issue to be tried in the main hearing, whether irreparable harm will ensue if the stay is not granted, and whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of a stay. As noted in the April 6 Order, parties on a stay motion are entitled to adduce evidence that is relevant to the stay test, which is different from the questions that must be determined in the main hearing.

12The Tribunal disagrees with APPEC’s argument that, because of the short preparation time for this motion, the lower threshold of proof used for interim stay motions should be applied. APPEC did not produce any authority in support of its argument and, given the fact that this is the third stay motion heard on this matter over the period of several weeks, the Tribunal finds that the parties have had sufficient time to prepare. The Tribunal finds that the threshold set out in RJR-MacDonald applies.

Evidence

13The Approval Holder submits that APPEC’s argument on this motion is the same argument raised and rejected by the Tribunal in APPEC’s first stay motion in March and thus the present motion should be approached as a request for the submission of new evidence and reconsideration of the first stay decision under Rules 234 and 238. The Approval Holder argues that APPEC does not meet the stringent criteria in these Rules, as the new evidence is not credible and admissible and will not materially assist in determining the issue before the Tribunal.

14APPEC submits that its evidence on this motion is not subject to Rule 234. It argues that para. 53 of the April 6 Order permits a renewed request for relief, implying that submission of additional evidence would be permitted. It submits that if the Approval Holder intended to bring arguments based on Rule 234, it should have raised them earlier. In any event, APPEC argues that its evidence consists of new information that did not previously exist and is credible and admissible under the Rule. Regarding the application of Rule 238, APPEC argues that the test for review is relevance. It submits that the issues and evidence raised by APPEC on this motion are relevant.

15The Tribunal, in the April 6 Order, found at para. 53 that based on the evidence provided, APPEC had not satisfied the stay test and stated that “[t]he Tribunal’s Rules do not preclude a party from again seeking the requested relief, should circumstances change in the future”. The first stay motion was argued prior to the commencement of the vegetation clearing and site preparation work by the Approval Holder. Since that time, the work has commenced and been partly completed in at least two locations in the Project Area. This stay motion is based on expanded grounds and on evidence arising from this work and its impacts and about the sighting of Blanding’s Turtles since the time of the first stay motion. While some of APPEC’s arguments are similar to those raised on the first stay motion, the Tribunal finds that the circumstances have changed.

16The Tribunal observes that if APPEC’s motion were a request for review of a previous order, the Tribunal could not entertain it because of Rule 242, which states that the review provisions are not applicable to proceedings under s. 142.1 of the EPA. However, the Tribunal finds that APPEC’s motion is not a request to review a previous order or decision but is a fresh motion that is separate from the first stay motion. In its April 6 Order, the Tribunal stated, in para. 18, that the parties are entitled to adduce evidence for the purpose of a stay motion that is relevant to the stay test. Given this and the Tribunal’s direction in the April 6 Order permitting parties to again seek relief if circumstances changed, the Tribunal finds that Rules 234 and 238 do not apply.

Serious Issue

17In both the April 6 Order and the April 11 Interim Stay Order, the Tribunal found that there is a serious issue remaining to be resolved in this proceeding. The Tribunal adopts those findings.

Irreparable Harm

18In the April 11 Interim Stay Order, the Tribunal found that APPEC’s arguments on the early emergence of turtles and removal of vegetation close to the Ostrander Crown Land Grant did not satisfy this part of the stay test, but that there may be irreparable harm arising from APPEC’s second ground regarding the destruction of spring foraging habitat for Blanding’s Turtle.

19In the present motion, APPEC argues that three types of irreparable harm will occur if a stay is refused:

• harm to Blanding’s Turtle emerging from hibernation

• destruction of Blanding’s Turtle spring foraging habitat

• removal of vegetation close to the Ostrander Crown Land Grant

20As the Tribunal stated in its April 6 Order, the onus is on APPEC to establish that irreparable harm will be caused if a stay is not granted and speculation about possible harm is not sufficient to meet the test. As the Supreme Court held in RJR-MacDonald, “irreparable” refers to the nature, rather than the magnitude, of the harm that would be suffered if a stay were not granted.

Harm to Blanding’s Turtle Emerging from Hibernation

21On both the first stay motion and the motion for an interim stay, APPEC adduced evidence that Blanding’s Turtle might overwinter in unexpected wet areas and might emerge early from hibernation and suffer increased mortality by collisions with equipment or vehicles associated with vegetation clearing and site preparation work. In its reasons for dismissing those motions, the Tribunal found that the REA’s mitigation and avoidance conditions addressed such concerns and that APPEC had not demonstrated that irreparable harm will occur.

22It is APPEC’s submission on this motion that Blanding’s Turtles have emerged from hibernation and will suffer irreparable harm through direct mortality if vegetation clearing continues. APPEC relies on the affidavit of Dr. Christina Davy, a conservation biologist, in which she reported being told by others that turtles were sighted in three locations in the Project Area in April. In her affidavit, sworn April 13, 2016, Dr. Davy stated that because of this, it is “important for the Approval Holder to have made its best efforts to comply with all of [the REA] Conditions.” APPEC argues that the REA mitigation and avoidance measures are either not being followed or it is not possible to determine whether they are or not. The only evidence provided that they are not being followed are “observations” by unnamed persons communicated to APPEC’s president, Orville Walsh, who then passed them on to counsel.

23The Approval Holder submitted an affidavit from Ken Todoroff, the Senior Site Manager for the Approval Holder, who has supervised the vegetation clearing. He stated that the Blanding’s Turtle mitigation and avoidance measures required by the REA are being followed in work areas and that no turtles have yet been encountered in areas where vegetation clearing has been conducted. As the Director pointed out, some of the measures do not apply until access roads have been constructed, which is beyond the work contemplated by the Approval Holder at this time.

24More detail on the mitigation and avoidance measures is provided in the April 6 Order. Dr. Davy did not take issue with the adequacy of the specific measures but only questioned whether or not the Approval Holder is in compliance with them. The Approval Holder argues that issues regarding compliance with renewable energy approval conditions are not relevant in the context of an appeal under s. 142.1 of the EPA; however, the Tribunal finds that such issues are relevant on a stay motion when determining whether irreparable harm will ensue. In the present case, the Tribunal finds that APPEC’s allegations of non-compliance are insufficiently substantiated and are answered by the evidence presented by Mr. Todoroff. The Tribunal adopts the findings in its previous Orders that the REA conditions adopt a precautionary approach by requiring that steps be taken to mitigate risk and avoid harm to Blanding’s Turtle if turtles are encountered in unexpected locations or the turtles emerge from hibernation early and that these measures directly address APPEC’s concerns. The Tribunal finds that APPEC has not demonstrated that irreparable harm will ensue to Blanding’s Turtle emerging from hibernation if a stay is not granted.

Destruction of Blanding’s Turtle Spring Foraging Habitat

25In the April 11 Interim Stay Order, the Tribunal found that vegetation clearing may cause irreparable harm. Regarding impacts caused by the disturbance of vegetation, the Tribunal stated, at para.17:

The Tribunal is concerned that this impact could be irreparable given the nature of this vegetation, which based on evidence produced at the main hearing, may be difficult to restore. Due to the lower threshold applied by the Tribunal on an interim stay motion, and taking a precautionary approach, the Tribunal accepts that the evidence is sufficient to indicate that irreparable harm may occur.

26In Prince Edward County Field Naturalists v. Ostrander Point GP Inc., 2014 ONCA 227 (“PECFN”), the Court of Appeal found that destruction of endangered species habitat would occur from construction of the renewable energy project in question and that such destruction constituted irreparable harm. As noted in the April 6 Order, that situation differed from the present case in that the project proponent in PECFN refused to disclose the start date or the full scope of the proposed work and the Court was not satisfied that the measures proposed by the proponent to mitigate harm would be effective. In the present case, the Approval Holder has specified the timing and scope of its proposed activities and has undertaken not to carry out any site preparation or construction activities associated with municipal roads or rights of way, crane pads, access roads or turbine bases and will limit its activities to private property. These restrictions relate to the activities that the Tribunal found in its February 26 Order will cause serious and irreversible harm to Blanding’s Turtle.

27In the April 6 Order, the Tribunal accepted that an increase in turtle mortality or destruction of turtle habitat can be considered irreparable harm, but found that the evidence provided for that motion did not demonstrate that the proposed activities will cause any increase in turtle mortality or the destruction of turtle habitat. The Tribunal found that the mitigation and avoidance measures set out in the REA applicable during construction adequately addressed APPEC’s concerns.

28On the present motion, Dr. Davy has provided her opinion that turtle habitat will be destroyed. She stated (emphasis added):

20. I am very disturbed by the amount and extent of damage that has been done by the work to date. This damage cannot be repaired, certainly in the foreseeable future, if ever. As a result, this kind of damage at this and any other proposed turbines sites also constitutes irreparable harm, as well as serious and irreversible harm, to Blanding’s turtle and the habitat of Blanding’s turtle.

21. From the photographs attached to Mr. Andrews’ affidavit (Exhibits “F1 to F4”) showing the extensive clearcutting at the T16/17, it is evidence widespread harm has been caused at this site. The natural habitat has been destroyed. This clearly includes Spring Foraging Habitat identified by Stantec and shown in Exhibit “E” of Mr. Andrews’ affidavit. This harm is particularly serious given that this is exactly the time in the Blanding’s turtle life cycle when habitat is critical.

22. I am not aware of any published research or studies that would support a conclusion that this type of damage can be effectively restored. It is clearly irreparable, and serious and irreversible, to the habitat of Blanding’s turtle. It is also unlikely that any Blanding’s turtle in such an area would have survived this type of clearcutting, all also leading to irreparable and serious and irreversible harm to individual turtles.

23. If this were to occur at any other site(s) the effect would also likely be the same, i.e. irreparable, and serious and irreversible, harm to Blanding’s turtle and/or their habitat.

29Neither the Approval Holder nor the Director has produced evidence on this motion to counter these statements. The Approval Holder argues that Dr. Davy’s evidence is not credible or admissible because she expresses an opinion on a subject that is outside of her expertise, that her opinion is purely speculative, and that she does not account for the conditions in the REA that require the Approval Holder to restore the vegetation. The Tribunal has not qualified Dr. Davy as an expert in this proceeding; however, neither the Approval Holder nor the Director has challenged her assertion that she is a conservation biologist with expertise regarding Blanding’s Turtle. The Tribunal accepts, for the purpose of this motion, that she has this expertise and that such expertise includes knowledge of Blanding’s Turtle habitat requirements.

30Dr. Davy points out that vegetation has been removed in areas identified as Blanding’s Turtle spring foraging habitat on a map included in APPEC’s motion materials. She states that the loss of this habitat is irreparable, but does not elaborate on why it cannot be restored.

31The map Dr. Davy refers to is taken from the Species at Risk Report, dated August 2012, prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd., for the Approval Holder (the “SAR Report”). The SAR Report is part of the evidence in the main hearing. It includes a set of more detailed maps identifying spring foraging habitat in the Project Area. These detailed maps indicate that some areas within the footprint of the Project, corresponding to areas that will be cleared if the Project goes ahead, do overlap with Blanding’s Turtle spring foraging habitat, while many areas do not. Thus, even if the Tribunal accepts Dr. Davy’s view that vegetation removal in spring foraging habitat is irreparable, the evidence does not demonstrate that all vegetation removal within the Project Area will be in spring foraging habitat.

32The key issue is whether removal of vegetation that is in Blanding’s Turtle spring foraging habitat will cause irreparable harm, in the sense that the habitat cannot be restored. Dr. Davy offers the opinion that the damage cannot be repaired “in the foreseeable future, if ever.” She also asserts that she is not aware of any published research or studies that would support a conclusion that this type of damage can be effectively restored.

33The Approval Holder argues that Dr. Davy’s view is mere speculation and does not take into account the conditions in the REA requiring that vegetation be restored. The Approval Holder states that the REA conditions apply to cleared areas regardless of whether the Project is ultimately approved by the Tribunal. These conditions require replanting of vegetation and monitoring, among other measures. However, even if vegetation is replanted, these measures alone do not demonstrate that habitat suitable for Blanding’s Turtle can be restored. While the extent of Dr. Davy’s expertise in ecological restoration is not known, the Approval Holder proffered no expert evidence on the motion with respect to this question.

34In the main hearing, the Appellants did not argue that the Project will cause serious and irreversible harm to Blanding’s Turtle as a result of habitat loss and, in its February 26 Order, the Tribunal made no findings regarding the impacts of habitat loss. Here, APPEC is concerned that if the Tribunal ultimately revokes the REA following the remedy hearing, important components of turtle habitat will have been irreparably harmed.

35There was only limited evidence on this issue in the main hearing. The SAR Report estimated that the Project (turbines, access roads, collector lines) will occupy 0.9% of the area of Blanding’s Turtle habitat (including spring foraging habitat) located in the Project Area, while a further amount, about 2% of turtle habitat, will be disturbed during construction. The issue of reversibility following decommissioning of the Project was addressed to some extent by Shawn Taylor, who gave opinion evidence on behalf of the Approval Holder. Mr. Taylor was qualified by the Tribunal at the main hearing as having expertise in the areas of ecological restoration and construction mitigation. Mr. Taylor stated at paras. 46 and 47 of his witness statement, dated October 19, 2015 (emphasis added):

46. Concerning the irreversibility of habitat loss, a preliminary decommissioning plan is in place … to rehabilitate the land to a level satisfactory to meet the future MNRF guidelines and objectives. Blanding’s are known to exploit and spread into abandoned and recovering anthropogenic lands for use as habitat (Beaudry et al, 2010) and seem to do well here. Despite this recent history and the ongoing farming, much of the land and ecosystem processes of the Project Locations have recovered by itself, and even provides habitat for an endangered species – all without human intervention.

47. With positive intervention throughout the operational period and at the time of decommissioning, and without other major land developments occurring within the Study Area, I believe we can have confidence that the impacts will be reversible, that the turtle population will remain viable, and that the land can be fully restored to a state of higher ecological function than currently exists today. […]

36As noted in the April 6 Order, the Tribunal again emphasizes that, although there is some overlap, the test in a stay motion regarding irreparable harm is distinct from the question of whether a project will cause serious and irreversible harm under s. 145.2.1(2) of the EPA. Moreover, the matters at issue on this motion are distinct from those raised in the main appeal. In the main hearing, the issues relating to Blanding’s turtle that were raised by the Appellants related to Project impacts arising from road mortality, predation, poaching and fragmentation of habitat. The argument being addressed on this motion is limited to impacts to spring foraging habitat for Blanding’s Turtle resulting from vegetation removal.

37The Tribunal has before it some evidence of irreparable harm to spring foraging habitat, even if that evidence is not particularly strong. The only evidence contradicting that evidence is reference to the vegetation restoration requirements in the REA and Mr. Taylor’s somewhat equivocal opinion with respect to the question of long-term reversibility. Mr. Taylor, who was not qualified as an expert in Blanding’s Turtle, did not specifically address whether spring foraging habitat could be restored and the Approval Holder provided no further expert evidence on this motion to interpret the impact of those measures for the ability of habitat to be restored within a period of time that will prevent harm to Blanding’s Turtle.

38In light of the fact that Blanding’s Turtle is a threatened species, the Tribunal finds that a precautionary approach to the assessment of the evidence is appropriate. As the Court of Appeal stated in PECFN, at para. 17, “[o]nce a habitat is destroyed, it is destroyed – for at least short-term purposes, in any event – and the species sought to be protected here is a vulnerable and endangered species.”

39Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the Approval Holder’s vegetation clearing and site preparation activities in spring foraging habitat for Blanding’s Turtle in the specific locations proposed for work in the Spring of 2016 will cause irreparable harm.

Removal of Vegetation Close to the Ostrander Crown Land Grant

40The third type of irreparable harm argued for by APPEC relates to the location of one wind turbine site on land abutting the Ostrander Crown Land Block (the “Ostrander site”), which is the subject of another renewable energy approval appeal before a different panel of the Tribunal. APPEC argues that, because the Ostrander site is public land and is actively used by the public on off-road vehicles and because there is no signage or fencing indicating that the Project Area is private property, these vehicles will traverse the cleared areas of the Project Area and thereby cause irreparable harm to Blanding’s Turtle and its habitat. As noted by the Tribunal in the April 6 Order, APPEC’s submission on this issue is not materially different from its other allegations of the nature of the harm to Blanding’s Turtle, except as to location. Again, the Tribunal finds that there is no reason presented as to why this location would be more susceptible to irreparable harm to turtles than other locations in the Project Area and the Tribunal finds that APPEC has not demonstrated that irreparable harm will ensue in this regard.

Balance of Convenience

41The parties rely substantially on the arguments they made in the previous motions on the balance of convenience. The potential for irreparable harm due to the destruction of vegetation must be weighed against the inconvenience to the Approval Holder of an interruption in vegetation clearing activities. No new evidence of serious inconvenience to the Approval Holder has been provided.

42Rule 110(d) requires the Tribunal to consider the effects on the public interest when assessing the balance of convenience. Here, the public interest in renewable energy must be balanced against the public interest in the protection of a threatened species. The conditions in the REA prohibit or greatly restrict construction activities in the Project Area after May 1 in order to protect nesting species of birds as well as turtles. The Tribunal expects that the remedy hearing will be completed and a final decision on these appeals while those conditions apply. Given these timing factors, the Tribunal finds that the public interest in renewable energy will not be impeded by a stay of the REA pending the final resolution of these appeals.

43Given its finding of irreparable harm as outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the balance of convenience favours APPEC.

Conclusion

44Given the Tribunal’s findings that there remains a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm will ensue to the spring foraging habitat of Blanding’s Turtle if a stay of the Approval Holder’s proposed activities is refused, and that the balance of convenience favours APPEC, the Tribunal finds that APPEC has satisfied the stay test and its motion is granted with respect to activities in areas identified as spring foraging habitat in the SAR Report.

ORDER

45The Tribunal grants APPEC’s motion for a stay in part.

46The Tribunal orders that vegetation clearing and site preparation activities associated with the Project in areas identified as Blanding’s Turtle spring foraging habitat in the Stantec Species at Risk Report, dated August 2012, are stayed pending the resolution of the appeals.

47The adjournment of the hearing, ordered on March 21, 2016, continues in effect.

Motion Granted in Part

Stay Granted

“Marcia Valiante”

MARCIA VALIANTE

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