Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: December 13, 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 |
|---|---|
| John Hirsch | Self-represented |
| Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County | Eric Gillespie |
| Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change | Sylvia Davis and Rebecca Crangle |
| wpd White Pines Wind Incorporated | Patrick Duffy and James Wilson |
ORDER DELIVERED BY MARCIA VALIANTE AND HUGH S. WILKINS
Background
1On November 14, 2016, the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) directed the parties to comply with a schedule for the remainder of this proceeding. The Tribunal directed that any further motions were to be served and filed by November 25, 2016.
2The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (“APPEC”) has filed three motions. The first motion, filed on November 25, 2016, requests an order qualifying Tom Adams, a witness for APPEC whose affidavit was filed on November 21, 2016, as an “energy consultant and research fellow”. The second motion, filed on November 25, 2016, requests an order admitting new evidence. The third motion was brought by APPEC on December 5, 2016 requesting an order admitting further new evidence.
ORDER
3With reasons to follow, the Tribunal orders that:
a. the first motion is granted in part, and Mr. Adams is qualified as an “energy consultant” for the purpose of providing evidence in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Direction for Technical and Opinion Evidence;
b. the second motion is granted in part, and the document attached as Exhibit “B” to Dr. Brock Fenton’s affidavit and titled “Ecological Impact Assessments Fail to Reduce Risk of Bat Casualties at Wind Farms” is admitted into evidence. The remainder of the November 25, 2016 motion to admit new evidence is dismissed. The Approval Holder and the Director are granted an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Fenton on this document, to be completed within five days of the release of this Order; and
c. the third motion is granted in part, and the document attached as Exhibit “E” to Mr. Adams’ affidavit and titled “Ontario Planning Outlook: A technical report on the electricity system prepared by the IESO”, is admitted into evidence. The remainder of the December 5, 2016 motion to admit new evidence is dismissed. The Approval Holder and the Director are granted an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Adams on this document, to be completed within five days of the release of this Order.
Motion to Qualify Witness Granted in Part
Motions to Admit New Evidence Granted in Part
“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