Environmental Review Tribunal

Tribunal de l’environnement

ISSUE DATE: November 04, 2016

CASE NO.: 16-028

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

Appellant: Michael Lalonde

Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal: Order Amendment No. 4 issued to submit documentation for the purpose of amending Environmental Compliance Approval No. 7500-9VKJ4A and to take action associated with the Tailings Management Facility

Reference No.: 8603-A22JS7

Property Address/Description: Phoenix Gold Project, Mining Claims KRL 246, 247, 18735

Municipality: Geographic Township of Bateman, Red Lake Municipality

Upper Tier: District of Kenora

ERT Case No.: 16-028

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

Heard: June 10 and August 16, 2016 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Michael A. Lalonde

Counsel

Self-represented

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Nadine Harris

DECISION DELIVERED BY DIRK VANDERBENT

REASONS

Background

1On January 25, 2016, Trina Rawn, Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) issued Director’s Order Amendment No. 4 (Order No. 8603-A22JS7) (“Order”) to a number of corporations and individuals, including Michael A. Lalonde. This Order amends a previous order requiring work to be completed to address environmental concerns at the Tailings Management Facility located at a property in northern Ontario that is the site of the Phoenix Gold Project.

2On February 9, 2016, Mr. Lalonde appealed the Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) under s. 142.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”).

3A preliminary hearing was held by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on June 10, 2016, and adjourned to a further TCC on August 16, 2016. At that time, Nadine Harris, counsel for the Director, confirmed that other persons named in the Order had completed the work required under the Order. Ms. Harris advised that the Director, therefore, would revoke the Order as against them. Ms. Harris further advised that the Director agrees to revoke the Order against Mr. Lalonde as well. However, as Mr. Lalonde’s appeal is before the Tribunal, the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”) require that such proposed revocation be reviewed by the Tribunal.

Relevant Rule

4The Tribunal’s Rule 202 states:

Where a Director, Risk Management Inspector or Official, Authority or a municipality proposes to revoke the decision that is the subject of an appeal, the Tribunal shall consider whether the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the relevant legislation and whether the proposed revocation is in the public interest. The Tribunal shall also consider the interests of Parties, Participants and Presenters. After the consideration of the above factors, the Tribunal may decide to continue with the Hearing or issue a decision dismissing the proceeding.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

5This is a straightforward matter. As the work required under the Order has been completed and the Order revoked as against other orderees, revocation of the Order as against Mr. Lalonde is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the EPA and is in the public interest. As well, there are no other parties, participants or presenters.

DECISION

6Director’s Order Amendment No. 4 (Order No. 8603-A22JS7) is revoked as against Mr. Lalonde.

7Mr. Lalonde’s appeal is dismissed.

Order Revoked