OERT 2017

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit recognizing the demolition of a storage barn.

At a pre-hearing conference, the appellant raised concerns regarding environmental contamination and heritage value, and requested additional conditions.

Noting that the appellant had not received all relevant documents, the Hearing Panel ordered the parties to exchange documents and scheduled a further teleconference to identify remaining issues and set hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a two-storey addition to an existing dwelling.

The appellant argued the permit should not be granted because an existing garage and fence encroached on an unopened municipal road allowance.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Hearing Officers granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged encroachment was a property boundary dispute outside the scope of the development permit and did not disclose a valid planning justification.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit application to convert a barn into a commercial rental facility for weddings.

Following several adjournments to allow the applicant to pursue an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the applicant decided not to pursue the amendment.

The Hearing Panel held a pre-hearing conference call and issued an order setting the procedural schedule and dates for the hearing of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties requested a further continuation of a previously granted stay of portions of the Director's Order, on consent, to allow time to finalize a detailed work plan.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay until March 28, 2018.

The appellant appealed conditions of a Permit to Take Water requiring the installation of a nested bedrock monitoring well.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo requested participant status, arguing it had an interest in monitoring the aquifer which serves as its source of drinking water.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Region on consent and set a schedule for document disclosure and mediation.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to delineate off-site contamination.

After an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion, the appellants withdrew their remaining grounds of appeal on the basis that the order's requirements had been or would be substantially complied with.

The Director consented to the withdrawal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to carry out work items relating to discharges from their greenhouse operation.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants complied with the order and the parties agreed to withdraw the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant brought a motion to waive the requirements for giving notice to nearby property owners and holding a pre-hearing conference prior to the Tribunal considering a proposed settlement of its appeal regarding a waste disposal site.

The appellant and the Director argued that notice was unnecessary as the appeal was being withdrawn and the issues were regulatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has jurisdiction to convene a pre-hearing conference to consider status requests before reviewing a settlement, and that waiving notice requirements was inappropriate given the public interest mandate of the environmental legislation.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to cease receiving and processing end-of-life vehicles at a site in Toronto following a fire.

After negotiations, the Director confirmed the revised operation plan complied with the order.

The appellants withdrew their appeals and stay motion on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to wash water and solid waste from their truck washing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants resolved the issues with the Director and formally withdrew their appeals without requiring any alteration to the Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued an order requiring the removal of waste materials and remediation of a site.

Several parties appealed the order.

After the required work was completed to the Director's satisfaction, the Director proposed to revoke the order against the remaining appellants.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the proposed revocation as consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, and dismissed the remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the management of ammonia and ammonium in an on-site stormwater management pond.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted Minutes of Settlement to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the issuance of the draft Amended ECA and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties agreed that additional time was needed to complete on-site work to achieve full compliance.

The Tribunal found that the statutory prohibitions against granting a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The continuation of the stay was granted on consent until November 17, 2017.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a barn, storage facilities, and other structures.

Two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants failed to appear at the peremptory pre-hearing conference.

The Hearing Officers dismissed the appeals under Rule 16 of the Tribunal Rules and confirmed the Commission's decision pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties had been working on a conceptual site model and requested more time to finalize it.

The Director consented to the request.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until December 28, 2017.

The appellant school board appealed a municipal order requiring it to pay over $600,000 for the clean-up of a heating oil spill from underground storage tanks at a former school site.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties jointly requested that the hearing be conducted in two phases: the first to determine if the school board was the owner or person in control of the oil at the time of the spill, and the second to assess the reasonableness and purpose of the costs incurred by the municipality.

The Tribunal granted the request to phase the hearing and adjourned the pre-hearing conference to allow the school board time to review technical reports and receive particulars.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office held a series of pre-hearing conferences regarding appeals of a development permit approved by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The permit allowed the applicant to construct agricultural and retail structures on a property in the Escarpment Protection Area.

Following several teleconferences where settlement discussions and revised site plans were considered, the Hearing Officers issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document disclosure, issues lists, and the final hearing dates.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request while the parties worked to finalize a conceptual site model.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until October 27, 2017.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to solid waste and wash water generated by their truck washing facility.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference and issued an order setting the dates for the hearing and a schedule for disclosure.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties consented to the stay to allow for further on-site work and review by the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and (3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay and granted the continuation on consent until September 30, 2017.