OERT 2016

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Greenpath Parties for failing to fulfill their disclosure obligations regarding a Director's Order for the removal of waste ash.

The Tribunal found that the Greenpath Parties had not disclosed all relevant documents or made reasonable efforts to obtain them from third parties.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeals at this stage, instead ordering the Greenpath Parties to provide full and complete disclosure by a specified deadline.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of certain provisions of a Director's Order requiring the implementation of a remediation plan for an oil spill.

The respondent consented to the stay because other named orderees were actively complying with the order, meaning the stay would not result in environmental harm under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent pending the disposition of the appeal.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for upgrades to an existing serviced campground resort.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties resolved their issues and the appellants withdrew their appeals.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the withdrawal of the appeals resulted in the automatic confirmation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to issue the development permit.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a conditionally approved Development Permit that would allow the conversion of a barn into a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appeal failed to disclose a planning justification under s. 25(8.1)(a) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's concerns regarding noise and land use compatibility constituted valid planning justifications that should be tested at a full hearing.

The City of London appealed a condition in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval requiring annual water quality monitoring of the Thames River using the BioMAP method.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the condition, making the monitoring time-limited to five years and requiring sampling every other year.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed municipal orders to pay costs issued by the City of Kawartha Lakes under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act relating to the clean-up of a furnace oil spill.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the co-owner, finding she was not the owner or person in control of the pollutant immediately before the discharge.

The Tribunal allowed the owner's appeal in part, reducing the total amount payable to $313,005.08, but dismissed his arguments that the consulting and monitoring costs were unrelated to preventing adverse effects or were unreasonable.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The Tribunal issued an order regarding the scope of the continuation of a hearing concerning appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal had previously found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

In this order, the Tribunal determined that the Approval Holder would be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding proposed remedies to address the identified harm.

The Tribunal also clarified the tests, considerations, and onus of proof applicable under section 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act for the remedy phase of the hearing.

The appellants appealed two Director's Orders requiring them to remove and dispose of PCB waste at a property in Thorold, Ontario.

The parties reached a tentative settlement where the appellants would submit a plan to remove above-ground waste and secure below-ground waste, in exchange for the revocation of the orders against them.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it provided a protective resolution for the environment given the appellants' limited financial means.

During an appeal of an order to pay costs related to the clean-up of an environmental spill, an orderee requested presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the orderee's interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, he has a genuine interest in the subject matter, and he is likely to make a relevant contribution to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.

The appellants, directors of Essar Steel Algoma Inc., brought a consent motion for a stay of section 2.11 of a Director's order requiring them to undertake work and submit a final report regarding environmental conditions.

The Tribunal found that the section was not an order to monitor, record and report, and that granting the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay until the appeals are finally disposed of.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to meet sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements for a sewage disposal system at a mobile home park.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement extending the compliance deadlines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it consistent with the environmental protection objectives of the legislation, accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the Director to amend the order accordingly.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a clean-up plan for groundwater contamination.

During ongoing settlement discussions, Freightliner and the City of London requested party status, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted party status to both entities for their respective sites and extended the stay of the Director's Order to allow settlement discussions to continue.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and execution of a demolition waste source separation program for an ongoing mill demolition.

Following a preliminary hearing by telephone conference call, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued procedural directions scheduling mediation, the exchange of disclosure and witness statements, and dates for the main hearing.

The Tribunal also provided directions for scheduling a motion to stay the Director's Order.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals from the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct 26/27 Sideroad.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, including dates for the continuation of the pre-hearing conference, motions, and the main hearing, as well as requirements for witness lists, expert meetings, and the exchange of evidence.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct a 33-car parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

The appellant argued the parking lot was not a permitted use and would cause environmental harm, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Study and master plan were required.

The Hearing Officers found that the parking lot is a permitted use as a Bruce Trail access point and satisfies all relevant Development Criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the development permit was confirmed.

A second prehearing was held regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

On consent of all parties, the Joint Board deferred consideration of the Permit to take Water and Environmental Compliance Approval to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The Board also varied the procedural schedule for serving and filing expert witness statements and related materials.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.