Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE:
January 19, 2017
CASE NO.:
16-110
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant:
Matthew Posthumus (File No. 16-110)
Appellant:
Agriculture Technology Incorporated (File No. 16-111)
Appellant:
ARRRC International Inc. (File No. 16-112)
Respondent:
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal:
Order to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for all air discharges and to perform various work at the site
Reference No.:
7215-AFDKW3-D
Property Address/Description:
329 County Road 34 E
Municipality:
Town of Kingsville
Upper Tier:
County of Essex
ERT Case No.:
16-110
ERT Case Name:
Posthumus v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard:
In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Matthew Posthumus, Agriculture Technology Incorporated, and ARRRC International Inc.
John Georgakopoulos, Joanna Vince, and Matthew Gardner
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Justin Jacob and Rebecca Crangle
ORDER DELIVERED BY JERRY V. DEMARCO
REASONS
Background
1On November 29, 2016, Mike Moroney, Director with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“Ministry”) issued Director’s Order No. 7215-AFDKW3-D (“Director’s Order”) to Matthew Posthumus, Agriculture Technology Incorporated (“ATI”) and ARRRC International Inc. (“ARRRC”) (collectively, the “Appellants”). The Director’s Order relates to the processing of agricultural material by ATI at 329 County Road 34 E in the Town of Kingsville, County of Essex (“Site”). ARRRC is the registered owner of the Site. Mr. Posthumus is the Vice-President and Director of ATI, and the President and Director of ARRRC.
2The Appellants have appealed the Director’s Order in its entirety to the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”), primarily arguing that the Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the order.
3The Appellants are seeking a stay of Item 3 of the Director’s Order pending the disposition of their appeals. Item 3 of the Director’s Order requires the Appellants to have a qualified consultant submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for all air discharges at the Site, with all necessary supporting documentation and applicable fees, to the Ministry by February 28, 2017.
4On January 6, 2017, the Director advised the Tribunal that he consents to the Appellants’ request for a stay of Item 3 of the Director’s Order. On January 12, 2017, the Director confirmed for the Tribunal that his consent to the requested stay is without condition and that the stay would apply pending the disposition of the appeals.
Issue
5The issue is whether the Tribunal should grant a stay of Item 3 of the Director’s Order pending the disposition of the appeals.
Discussion and Findings
6The Director and the Appellants agree that there is no statutory bar to the Tribunal granting a stay, including under s. 143(2) or 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.
7The Tribunal has reviewed the Director’s Order, including Item 3 in particular, and is satisfied that there is no statutory bar to granting a stay. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that it is not prevented from ordering a stay of Item 3 of the Director’s Order pending the disposition of the appeals.
8Given that the stay is on consent of the parties, it is not necessary to analyze the elements listed in Rule 110 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice relating to evidence and submissions in support of a motion for a stay.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders that the request for a stay of Item 3 of the Director’s Order until the disposition of the appeals is granted.
Stay Granted
“Jerry V. DeMarco”
JERRY V. DEMARCO
ASSOCIATE 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