Tribunal de l’environnement

ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2016

CASE NO: 10-055

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 100.1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended

Appellant: Technical Standards and Safety Authority (ERT Case No. 10-055)

Appellant: Doug C. Thompson Fuels Ltd. (ERT Case No. 10-058)

Appellant: Wayne Gendron (ERT Case No. 10-059)

Appellant: Liana Gendron (ERT Case No. 10-060)

Respondent: Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Subject of appeal: Order to pay in relation to the clean-up of a spill

Property Address/Description: Municipal property adjacent to 93 and 95 Hazel Street

Municipality: Township of Verulam

Upper Tier: City of Kawartha Lakes

ERT Case No.: 10-055

ERT Case Name: Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City)

Heard: January 7, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Wayne and Liana Gendron

Martin Forget and Fahreen Kurji

Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Christine Carter and Michael Krygier-Baum

REASONS

Background

1On June 15, 2010, the Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes (the “City”) issued orders against the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (“TSSA”), Doug C. Thompson Fuels Ltd. operating as Thompson Fuels (“Thompson Fuels”), and Wayne and Liana Gendron (the “Gendrons”), pursuant to s. 100.1(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) (the “s. 100.1 Orders”). The s. 100.1 Orders require the appellants to pay $471,691.44 in relation to a clean-up of furnace oil performed by the City on municipal property adjacent to 93 and 95 Hazel Street, in the City of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario.

2On July 29 and 30, 2010, the appellants filed notices of appeal with the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to s. 100.1(7) of the EPA. Only the appeals by the Gendrons (Tribunal File Nos.: 10-059 and 10-060) remain before the Tribunal.

3In parallel to these proceedings before the Tribunal, both the Gendrons and the City have brought separate civil proceedings relating to the spill, which affected both the Gendrons’ property and the City’s. The civil proceedings were consolidated on consent. The City’s civil proceedings seek similar relief to that sought in the s. 100.1 Orders being appealed to the Tribunal and include the Gendrons as defendants.

4The proceedings before the Tribunal have been adjourned several times to, among other reasons, avoid duplication with the civil actions before the Ontario Superior Court. In its last adjournment Order, dated February 12, 2015, the Tribunal found that the City had not shown that it would forego its civil claim and the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding again.

5On September 24, 2015, the Tribunal held a status update telephone conference call (“TCC”) at which the City undertook not to pursue the civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeds, even if the City is unsuccessful at that hearing. Based on this submission, the Tribunal found that there had been a significant change in circumstances from those at the time of the February 12, 2015 Order. On October 9, 2015, the Tribunal issued an Order directing the hearing to commence on February 22, 2016 and setting associated procedural deadlines.

6On December 1, 2015, the Gendrons filed with the Tribunal a motion to adjourn the hearing scheduled to commence on February 22, 2016 until after the conclusion of the civil actions. The motion was opposed by the City and heard by the Tribunal on January 7, 2016. On January 8, 2016, the Tribunal issued an Order dismissing the Gendrons’ motion. These are the reasons for that Order.

Relevant Rules

7The relevant Rules of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (the “Rules”) are:

A Party seeking an adjournment shall provide evidence and submissions in support of the motion respecting:

(a) whether the other Parties consent to the request and the date suggested for the commencement or continuation of the Hearing;

(b) detailed reasons for the request, including, if appropriate, affidavit evidence;

(d) any urgency for the request because of the public interest;

(e) any inconvenience to other Parties, Participants and Presenters due to the adjournment; and

(f) any other factors relating to the considerations listed in Rule 105.

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.

Issue

8The issue is whether the Tribunal should adjourn the Tribunal hearing scheduled to commence on February 22, 2016.

Discussion

The Gendrons’ Submissions

9The Gendrons submit that the current circumstances support the adjournment of the hearing. They submit that there continues to be a risk of duplication of proceedings if the Tribunal hearing goes forward in February followed by a civil trial in November 2016 and argue that the City’s conduct does not warrant the commencement of the hearing as scheduled.

10The Gendrons submit that the trial of the civil action has been set for November 2016 thereby limiting any further delay in that proceeding. They argue that the City’s undertaking (made during the September 24, 2015 TCC) not to pursue the civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeds is ambiguous regarding the circumstances under which the City will not move forward with its civil action. They submit that the City’s conditional settlement of its civil action with Thompson Fuels and the TSSA and its refusal to fully disclose the particulars of that conditional settlement have complicated matters by requiring the adjudication of set-off issues and raising the spectre of double recovery by the City. The Gendrons submit that the City’s conditional settlement will not alter the need for the parties to attend the Superior Court to address costs, set-off and contribution issues. The Gendrons argue that the conditional nature of the City’s settlement indicates that “the action remains live, open and contentious” and that the rationale behind the Tribunal’s previous Orders adjourning the proceeding remains.

11The Gendrons refer to the Tribunal’s earlier findings in this proceeding (see: Technical Standards & Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City) (2011), 58 C.E.L.R. (3d) 202, at para. 32) where the Tribunal found that the Superior Court process would more likely generate a global resolution of the financial issues at stake and will more likely avoid the duplication of efforts. The Gendrons submit that these circumstances continue and that the City’s undertaking not to pursue the civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeds is unenforceable, unclear and does little to reduce the risk of duplication.

12The Gendrons argue that the City has pursued the civil action vigorously, acted in a punitive manner and abused the Tribunal process and its statutory authority. They submit that the City has vigorously pursued its civil action through various means including naming a large number of defendants. The Gendrons argue that the City’s actions against them have been punitive, noting that Mr. Gendron is an “uninsured taxpayer” who has been pursued by the City for payment of funds that he does not possess. They submit that the City presently seeks recovery from the Gendrons after already settling with other parties. They submit that enforcement of the s. 100.1 Order would result in Mr. Gendron’s financial ruin. The Gendrons argue that the City has abused both the Court and Tribunal processes by repeatedly taking untenable positions on procedural issues, failing to disclose settlement terms, and taking a two-tracked approach of proceeding both under s. 100.1 and through its civil action. The Gendrons submit that the further down the civil track that the City proceeds, the more difficult it ought to be to change course to the Tribunal track.

The City’s Submissions

13The City submits that circumstances have not changed since the October 9, 2015 Order and the motion to adjourn should be dismissed. The City submits that it does not intend to double recover, it has worked to resolve all the issues in dispute, and that the circumstances favour the hearing of the appeals as scheduled. It argues that Rules 105 (c), (h) and (j) support its position, submitting that the integrity of the Tribunal’s process, the consequences of an adjournment, and the public interest in the delivery of the Tribunal’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner favour the denial of the Gendrons’ adjournment request.

14The City submits that it has no intention to double recover. It submits that its affidavit evidence, its conditional settlement of issues with other parties in the civil action, and its reduction in the number of invoices from which it seeks recovery demonstrate its intention to only obtain a fair recovery of the clean-up expenses it has incurred. The City submits that it has not yet received any settlement funds and that the settlement is conditional on the Tribunal hearing going forward as scheduled. It argues that, although it has not fully disclosed to the Gendrons the terms of its conditional settlement, any concern regarding double recovery could be later determined by the Superior Court without proceeding to trial.

15The City submits that it comes to the Tribunal with “clean hands”, having made efforts to resolve all the issues in dispute, withdrawn its s. 100.1 Orders against Thompson Fuels and the TSSA, reduced the number of invoices for which it is seeking cost recovery, and conditionally settling its civil claims against all the defendants apart from the Gendrons and their insurer. The City submits that, although there will be loose ends that may need to be adjudicated by the Superior Court, including the need to address costs, contribution, and set-off issues, the City will not proceed to a civil trial if the Tribunal hearing proceeds. The City argues that the Tribunal hearing dates are set and that it is prepared, having served and filed witness statements and its documents brief.

16The City relies on the affidavit evidence of Robyn Carlson, which states that “the City has always indicated that it does not intend to double recover the costs it incurred” and that “the City will not be involved in the civil trial at all and the three other defendants to the City’s action who are not parties to the Gendron action will not be involved in any further proceedings either” if the Tribunal hearing proceeds in February.

17The City submits that under the present circumstances, consideration of the factors in Rule 105 favours the denial of the Gendrons’ adjournment request. Addressing Rule 105(c), the City submits that the integrity of the Tribunal’s process would be impacted if the Tribunal were to allow the Gendrons to delay and avoid the hearing. Regarding the consequences of an adjournment (105(h)), the City submits that proceeding first with the civil trial would cause it, several other parties to that proceeding and the court to incur the unnecessary expense of a lengthy trial. On the other hand, it submits that the Tribunal hearing will be short and less expensive with the City only calling two witnesses. The City argues that the need for the delivery of the Tribunal’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner (105(j)) would be jeopardized if the upcoming hearing were adjourned at this stage.

The Gendrons’ Reply Submissions

18The Gendrons submit that the integrity of the Tribunal’s process would be negatively affected if the Tribunal hearing proceeds, as the court is the more appropriate forum. In terms of the consequences of an adjournment (leading to a civil trial), the Gendrons submit that as a plaintiff, the City has control of its civil action and, whether the civil action proceeds or not, the City must face the associated expenses. Regarding the need for the delivery of the Tribunal’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner, the Gendrons argue that delay in these proceedings has been found by the Tribunal in the past to be justified and that this continues to be the case.

19The Gendrons argue that the Tribunal hearing will not be short and the Tribunal will need to hear evidence from a long list of witnesses covering various issues. They argue that the issues at stake can be best adjudicated by the Superior Court.

Analysis and Findings

20The Tribunal’s approach to the exercise of its discretion in the face of an adjournment request has been summarized in its previous Orders in this proceeding. Similarly, the Tribunal’s approach to the distinction between a stay and an adjournment has been canvassed before. That matter was raised again in the City’s written materials but not pursued in oral argument. There is no need to reiterate that material here. It is sufficient to note that the Tribunal continues to utilize the same general framework as set out in its previous Orders.

21In the present circumstances, there are factors that weigh in favour of granting an adjournment while there are others that are against. Many of these have been addressed under different circumstances in the Tribunal’s previous Orders in this proceeding. The relevant passages from the previous Tribunal Orders are found at: Technical Standards & Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City) (2011), 58 C.E.L.R. (3d) 202, paras. 29-32, Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City) (2012), 68 C.E.L.R. (3d) 158, paras. 38-45, Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City), [2012] O.E.R.T.D. No. 56, paras. 36-45, and Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City), 2015 CarswellOnt 2271, paras. 34-39.

22Keeping in mind the reasons for the earlier Tribunal Orders in this matter, the remainder of these reasons will focus on the specific circumstances that are now present. The task for the Tribunal is to consider the present circumstances and determine the most appropriate way forward, while recognizing that the path up to this point has not been nearly as efficient as hoped. The Tribunal recognizes that many of the concerns it raised in its previous Orders will not be completely addressed through either a granting or refusal of an adjournment. There remain competing factors at play. The Tribunal notes that the courses of action taken by the parties to date have not minimized duplication to the extent that the Tribunal hoped. The civil train left the station long ago with the City’s action on board and the Tribunal cannot now undo the inefficiencies that arose from the City’s attempts to pursue the same monies in two different fora at the same time.

23Regardless of any past inefficiencies resulting from the parties’ approach to the Tribunal and civil proceedings, the Tribunal has to determine whether it makes more sense to address the City’s claim for recovery of clean-up costs before the Tribunal now. If the Tribunal does not permit the City to switch tracks now, it will essentially be withholding a Tribunal hearing and forcing the City into a more costly civil proceeding in respect of its specific remaining claims amounting to approximately $337,000. The biggest difference between the present circumstances and the circumstances surrounding the Tribunal’s earlier Orders is that now the City will not seek reimbursement of the same monies at the same time before the Tribunal and the courts. Now, the City is committed to sticking to just one track.

24As set out below, the Tribunal finds that, after weighing the various competing factors, the most appropriate course of action is to refuse the adjournment and proceed with the February 2016 hearing before the Tribunal. While the Gendrons note that some circumstances have changed since the Tribunal’s October 12, 2015 Order, which set the February 2016 hearing dates, a weighing of all of the relevant factors favours proceeding with the hearing in February.

25In its written materials, the Gendrons refer to the following passage from the Tribunal’s February 12, 2015 Order (Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City), 2015 CarswellOnt 2271):

36 […] Without a declaration from the City that it will forego its civil claims and continue solely on the Tribunal proceeding track, the risk of duplication of efforts and potential loss of opportunities for a global resolution remain.

26The Gendrons state that the City continued to request the Tribunal to set a date for the hearing without making the requisite declaration. However, this situation changed considerably later in 2015. As stated in the October 12, 2015 Order, an important consideration of the Tribunal in scheduling the February 2016 hearing was the City’s undertaking not to proceed with its civil action. The Tribunal stated (Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City), 2015 CarswellOnt 15662):

7 […] the City clarified to the Tribunal and to the Gendrons that the City undertakes not to pursue the civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeds, even if the City is unsuccessful at that hearing. Based on these submissions, the Tribunal found that there has been a significant change in circumstances from those at the time of the February 12, 2015 Order. Based on this change, the Tribunal indicated that it was prepared to set hearing dates and procedural deadlines for this proceeding.

27On the present motion, the City reiterated in its written submissions its commitment and submitted as follows:

If the hearing is allowed to proceed as scheduled, the City will be only seeking from the appellants recovery of the invoices of its remediation contractor, Golder Associates, which amount to a total of $337,729.87…

The City has not recovered any sums for these invoices from the defendants in the civil action and there will be no double recovery.

If the hearing takes place as scheduled starting February 22, 2016, the City will not be involved in the civil trial at all. Neither will three of the other defendants who are parties to the City’s action. The City will not pursue its civil action regardless of the outcome of the hearing.

28In response to submissions by the Gendrons and questions from the Tribunal at the motion hearing, the City reconfirmed that it will not proceed to a civil trial if the Tribunal hearing commences as scheduled in February. The City acknowledges that some adjudication by the Superior Court may be necessary to address set-off and litigation costs issues if the terms of the City’s withdrawal of its action are not agreed to by all parties to that action. The Tribunal finds that this provides a practical outlook of what needs to be done to withdraw the City’s civil action and is not a significant change in circumstances as compared to the situation surrounding the October 12, 2015 Order. The Tribunal leaves it to the parties to resolve any disputes that may arise from the City’s discontinuance of its civil proceeding in that forum.

29The following factors favour proceeding with the Tribunal hearing in February. The City has secured a conditional settlement with several parties in its civil action. The City estimates that the five weeks of the consolidated civil proceeding that would have been needed to address the City’s claim can now be avoided through the City pursuing any remaining monies it seeks to recover only before the Tribunal. The City has also served and filed its witness list, witness statements and documents brief in preparation for the Tribunal hearing in February. It has also narrowed its remaining claim to one class of invoices from its remediation contractor, Golder Associates, which will simplify the issues and evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the City’s commitment not to pursue a civil trial and its readiness for the Tribunal hearing support its request to continue with the Tribunal hearing as scheduled.

30As noted in its Order dated March 15, 2011, the Tribunal could not unilaterally extricate the City’s claims for recovery of clean-up costs from the larger civil proceeding. Consequently, to the extent that the City sought to proceed on both tracks simultaneously, the Tribunal consistently adjourned the Tribunal track so as to minimize, as much as possible, duplication. Now, the City has undertaken to extricate its claim from the consolidated civil action and terminate it. This is a major development and allows the Tribunal to proceed without a concern that there will be parallel civil proceedings over the same monies by the City. This key factor underlies the Tribunal’s October 12, 2015 Order and remains a key factor on the current motion.

31There are factors that favour the granting of an adjournment, however. As argued by the Gendrons, the previous uncertainty over hearing dates for the civil action has been resolved and the trial has been set to commence in November 2016. As well, while the City’s action is slated to end without the necessity of a trial, the Gendrons’ action is still expected to proceed unless a settlement is achieved. The Tribunal’s previously-stated hope that a global resolution of all claims could be achieved via the civil process will not come about if the Tribunal hearing now proceeds, unless such a resolution occurs very soon. The Gendrons also noted that some aspects of the City’s action will return to the Superior Court if the terms of the City’s withdrawal are not settled. This may include costs, set-off, and other issues, regardless of whether the Tribunal hearing proceeds. The Gendrons also submit that the Tribunal hearing may also still be lengthy and the costs savings associated with proceeding with the Tribunal hearing may not be as significant as suggested by the City.

32Taking into account the affidavit evidence and the submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 105, the Tribunal finds that it is not appropriate to grant an adjournment. The Tribunal acknowledges that some factors do favour an adjournment for some of the same reasons set out above and in previous Tribunal Orders. However, on a net basis, the weighing of factors favours proceeding with the hearing in February. The Tribunal finds that there has not been such a significant change in circumstances since the October 12, 2015 Order that an adjournment should now be granted. Based on the City’s undertaking regarding the termination of its civil action, moving forward with the Tribunal hearing as scheduled will not duplicate efforts before the Tribunal and the Superior Court with regard to the City’s claims for recovery of clean-up costs.

33The Tribunal recognizes that the Gendrons’ claims against several parties will still have to proceed before the courts, but “the presence of a related civil action is not, on its own, determinative of an adjournment motion such as this” (para. 37 of the Tribunal’s February 12, 2015 Order; see also para. 45 of the Tribunal’s November 7, 2012 Order). It is to be expected that orderees (and perhaps other third parties) that are the subject of an environmental order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change or a clean-up cost recovery order like this one issued by the City will have to sort out ultimate financial liability and allocation through civil actions. The order issuing authority or the Tribunal need not await those civil proceedings or attempt to resolve all aspects of a larger liability or allocation dispute among orderees and third parties. The Tribunal should remain focused on carrying out the statutory mandate assigned to it. Here, the EPA provides a right of appeal of municipal clean-up cost recovery orders to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was comfortable withholding a hearing so long as the evidence clearly showed that the City was simultaneously seeking to recover the same monies in two different fora. However, now that it is no longer doing so, the Tribunal finds that it should proceed to a hearing of the appeal without further delay.

34Given the City’s undertaking to end its civil action over the same monies at stake before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the just, timely and cost effective manner of reaching a resolution of the issues that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (i.e., only the City’s clean-up costs) is to continue with the Tribunal hearing as scheduled. While the Gendrons have concerns that there may be double recovery and that the terms of any withdrawal of the City’s civil claim will not be agreed upon, the Tribunal is confident that the best forum for the resolution of those issues is the Superior Court. The Tribunal’s role in this larger dispute is circumscribed by s. 100.1 of the EPA and its hearing will remain within the confines of the statute.

35To summarize, the Tribunal finds that allowing an adjournment at this stage and effectively forcing the City, third parties and the public to incur the unnecessary expense of a lengthy civil trial seeking the recovery of the same clean-up costs that are before the Tribunal is not the most appropriate course of action. While the Tribunal would have preferred that the civil process would lead to a global resolution (as occurred in Belahov v. City of Toronto, 2014 CarswellOnt 14277 (Ont. Env. Rev. Trib.), which shares some procedural commonalities with this case, but had none of the recurring procedural skirmishes that this case has had), no global resolution has materialized here. The Tribunal notes that the Tribunal hearing is set for only two weeks and would have a narrower scope and involve fewer parties than a lengthier civil trial over the same monies. Taking into account the integrity of the Tribunal’s process, the consequences of an adjournment and the public interest, the Tribunal denies the Gendrons’ request to adjourn the hearing of the appeals scheduled to commence on February 22, 2016. However, the Tribunal encourages the parties to make a final effort to reach a negotiated resolution of their dispute before the Tribunal or the global dispute.

Other Matters

36The Gendrons provided a draft list of witnesses and revised notice of appeal at the hearing of the adjournment motion. This material was meant to demonstrate, in part, that a Tribunal hearing will not necessarily be as short as the City hopes. The deadline for the Gendrons to file their witness statements is January 29, 2016. The Tribunal reminds the parties of the following passage from its February 12, 2015 Order:

[…] Appeals of orders issued under s. 100.1 of the EPA are circumscribed and the Gendrons should not expect to be able to call evidence that is not relevant to the statutory scope of their appeals. The EPA provides:

100.1(15) At a hearing by the Tribunal under this section, the Tribunal shall consider only,

(a) whether the person to whom the order was directed was, immediately before the discharge into the natural environment,

(i) the owner of the thing that was discharged,

(ii) the person having charge, management or control of the thing that was discharged, or

(iii) the employee or agent of the person having charge, management or control of the thing that was discharged; or

(b) whether any of the costs or expenses specified in the order,

(i) do not relate to things for which the municipality or local board incurred costs or expenses for a purpose referred to in subsection (1), or

(ii) are unreasonable having regard to what was done.

37In light of the Gendrons’ draft list of witnesses and the wording of the revised Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal will hold a TCC in early February 2016 to address procedural issues that may arise in relation to the upcoming hearing so as to ensure that the Tribunal stays within the statutory mandate of s. 100.1(15). Having regard to the content of witness statements that will have all been filed by the time of the TCC and in light of the wording of s. 100.1(15), the parties should be prepared to demonstrate at the TCC the relevance of the evidence set out in each witness statement for witnesses to be called or set out in the evidence summary (see Rule 192(b)) provided for any witness that may be the subject of a request for a summons. Any party who seeks to have all or parts of a witness statement struck or to request that the Tribunal refuse to issue a summons or circumscribe the evidence to be provided under a requested summons shall serve and file submissions on why the anticipated evidence is not relevant two days prior to the upcoming TCC. The Tribunal will subsequently provide appropriate direction to the parties so that the hearing scheduled to commence on February 22, 2016 will proceed efficiently.

38Given that the Gendrons have indicated that they intend to request a summons for some witnesses on their draft witness list, the Tribunal directs that the materials required under Rule 192 for all witnesses expected to be the subject of a request for a summons shall be served and filed together with the Gendrons’ witness statements by the January 29, 2016 deadline for their witness statements and documents to be relied on. This will provide the parties and the Tribunal with sufficient information to address procedural issues, including issues pertaining to the evidence of all witnesses (whether subject to a summons request or not) during the TCC in early February 2016.

39The Gendrons indicated at the January 7, 2016 motion hearing that they were seeking their costs in this motion. The Tribunal will address that request and any other outstanding costs matters at the conclusion of this proceeding.

ORDER

40The Tribunal dismisses the motion of the Appellants, Wayne and Liana Gendron, to adjourn the hearing of the appeals scheduled to commence on February 22, 2016.

41The Tribunal directs that a status TCC be held in early February 2016 to address procedural issues that may arise in relation to the upcoming hearing. The Tribunal case coordinator will contact the parties to arrange the status TCC.

Motion Dismissed

“Jerry V. DeMarco”

JERRY V. DEMARCO

ASSOCIATE CHAIR

“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

Technical Standards and Safety Authority v. Kawartha Lakes (City), 2016 CanLII 2592

Case Summary