Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: November 03, 2016
CASE NO(S): 16-048 and 16-052
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28, as amended
Appellant: Concerned Citizens of Brant (File No. 16-048)
Appellant: Corporation of the County of Brant (File No. 16-049)
Instrument Holder: CRH Canada Group Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Permit to Take Water from Paris Pit issued under section 34.1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as amended
Reference No.: 7115-9VVLJW
Property Address/Description: Lot 27, Concession 2
Municipality: Township of South Dumfries
Upper Tier: County of Brant
ERT Case No.: 16-048
ERT Case Name: Concerned Citizens of Brant v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28, as amended
Appellant: Concerned Citizens of Brant (File No. 16-052)
Appellant: Corporation of the County of Brant (File No. 16-053)
Instrument Holder: CRH Canada Group Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Environmental Compliance Approval issued under section 20.3 of Part II.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19 for the establishment, use and operation of sewage works for the collection, transmission, treatment and reuse of wash water effluent from an aggregate washing operation
Reference No.: 1400-9VNPVY
Property Address/Description: Lot 26, 27, 1, 2 & 3, Concession 3, 2, WGR
Municipality: Township of South Dumfries
Upper Tier: County of Brant
ERT Case No.: 16-052
ERT Case Name: Concerned Citizens of Brant v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: November 2, 2016 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Concerned Citizens of Brant Joseph Castrilli, Ramani Nadarajah and Monica Poremba (student-at-law)
Corporation of the County of Brant Paula Lombardi and Kirsten Mikadze
Directors, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Nicholas Adamson
CRH Canada Group Inc. Jonathan W. Kahn and Brittiny Rabinovitch (student-at-law)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HEATHER I. GIBBS
REASONS
Background
1Notices of Appeal were filed by the Concerned Citizens of Brant (“CCOB”) and the Corporation of the County of Brant (“County”) (together the “Appellants”) on April 14, 2016 of two instruments issued by two Directors of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”): Permit to Take Water No. 7115-9VVLJW (“PTTW”), and Environmental Compliance Approval No. 1400-9VNPVY (“ECA”). The instruments were issued to CRH Canada Group Inc. (“Instrument Holder”).
2In their Notices of Appeal of the PTTW, CCOB and the County request that the Tribunal grant:
(a) An Order revoking Conditions 3.3, 3.4b, 3.6, 4, and 4.7 in the PTTW ;
(b) An Order directing the Director to substitute revised Conditions in the PTTW in relation to the above-referred to subject-matter of Conditions 3.3, 3.4b, 3.6, 4 and 4.7, as may be specified by the Tribunal; and
(c) Such further or other Orders as Appellants’ counsel may advise and this Tribunal permit.
3In their Notices of Appeal of the ECA, CCOB and the County request that the Tribunal grant:
(a) An Order revoking Conditions 4.8 and 5 in the ECA;
(b) An Order directing the Director to substitute further and better Conditions in the ECA in relation to the above-referred to subject-matter of Conditions 4.8 and 5, as may be specified by the Tribunal; and
(c) Such further or other Orders as Appellants’ counsel may advise and this Tribunal permit.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
4Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice provides that a Notice of Appeal shall include, inter alia, a description of the relief requested.
5The Directors and the Instrument Holder have asked for clarification of the remedy being requested by the Appellants so that they can adequately prepare their cases.
6CCOB indicated that it may be possible to provide specific proposed wording for the requested amended or replacement conditions; however, CCOB also indicates that specific proposed wording may not be possible for all conditions that are the subject of the appeals. CCOB stated that specifics could be found in its expert witness statements that were provided as required by an Order of this Tribunal dated October 11, 2016.
7The County saw no impediment to clarifying its requested relief.
8A statement of the relief requested by an appellant serves to clarify the issues to be addressed in the hearing, for the Tribunal and for the parties. Clarifying the requested relief at the outset of a proceeding may also lead to more fruitful and timely settlement discussions amongst parties, result in a more focused hearing and, possibly, obviate the need for a hearing altogether. The Tribunal finds that the request for revised conditions “as may be specified by the Tribunal” is vague and does not achieve any of the foregoing. Therefore, in order to promote an efficient and effective hearing process, the Tribunal orders the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders that the Appellants clarify for the parties and the Tribunal their requested relief in their appeals of the PTTW and the ECA by November 10, 2016.
10Where a proposed remedy involves replacing or amending a condition, wording of the proposed replacement condition should be provided, as far as possible.
11Where specific wording is not possible, a short explanation should be provided as to why that is the case, as well as a description of the elements the parties are seeking in a replacement or amended condition.
Request for Particulars Granted
Procedural Directions Ordered
“Heather I. Gibbs”
HEATHER I. GIBBS
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