VPA Group Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2017 CanLII 53054

ISSUE DATE: August 11, 2017

CASE NO.: 09-128

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

Appellant: VPA Group Inc.

Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal: Order to cease to make use of the site

Reference No.: 6261-7UWR78-1

Property Address/Description: 2380 Loreland Avenue, Part Lot 3, Concession 1 SDS, Part Lot 4, Concession 1 SDS, Parts 2-5, 28-34, RP 43R-15013

Municipality: City of Mississauga

Upper Tier: Region of Peel

ERT Case No.: 09-128

ERT Case Name: VPA Group Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

Heard: June 1, 2017 by telephone conference call and in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

VPA Group Inc.

Neil Kredentser

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Nadine Harris

DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS

REASONS

Background

1On October 22, 2009, VPA Group Inc. (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Environmental Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding Director’s Order No. 6261-7UWR78-1 (the “Director’s Order”) issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”), on October 7, 2009 under s. 157.3(5) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”). The Director’s Order requires the Appellant to cease using a former waste disposal site located at 2380 Loreland Avenue, Mississauga, Ontario (the “Site”), and to remove all vehicles and associated equipment from the Site.

2An initial preliminary hearing was held on February 5, 2010, which was continued by a series of status update telephone conference calls (“TCCs”). Further background to this proceeding is set out in the Tribunal’s Orders dated February 8, 2010, May 20, 2011, September 4, 2014, and December 14, 2015, which set dates for the hearing and the exchange of documents, stayed the Director’s Order pending the disposition of the appeal, and adjourned hearing dates.

3On May 31, 2017, the Director communicated with the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal revoke the Director’s Order against the Appellant and dismiss the appeal under Rule 202 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”). On June 1, 2017, the Tribunal heard submissions from the parties on this issue by TCC. The Tribunal revoked the Director’s Order and dismissed the appeal.

4These are the reasons for that decision.

Issue

5The issue is whether the Director’s Order should be revoked and the appeal be dismissed, or whether the hearing should continue.

Relevant Legislation and Rules

6The following are the relevant provisions of the EPA and the Tribunal’s Rules:

EPA

Purpose of the Act

3.(1) The purpose of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment.

145.2(1) Subject to sections 145.3 and 145.4, a hearing by the Tribunal under this Part shall be a new hearing and the Tribunal may confirm, alter or revoke the action of the Director that is the subject-matter of the hearing and may by order direct the Director to take such action as the Tribunal considers the Director should take in accordance with this Act and the regulations, and, for such purposes, the Tribunal may substitute its opinion for that of the Director.

Rules

Termination of Proceedings

Where a Director, Risk Management Inspector or Official, Authority or municipality proposes to revoke a 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

7Tribunal Rule 202 requires that the Tribunal consider whether the proposed revocation of the Director’s Order is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the EPA and whether it is in the public interest. The Tribunal must also consider the interests of parties, participants and presenters. The Tribunal has the discretion either to continue with a proceeding or to dismiss it.

8On May 31, 2017, the Director sent correspondence to the Tribunal, and, on June 1, 2017, made oral submissions that the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose of the EPA and is in the public interest for the following reasons:

while the Site has a history of illegal dumping, the waste most recently dumped has been removed and the Site has been restored and landscaped;
the property owner has completed the required studies and submitted an application for an approval under s. 46 of the EPA to ensure that the lands can continue to be used by the Appellant as an unpaved parking lot for transport trailers;
members of the MOECC staff have reviewed the application and associated studies and concluded that the Site is suitable for the proposed use;
the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change has granted the s. 46 approval for the use of the property as an unpaved parking lot; and
this request avoids the cost, time and resources of a hearing and allows these resources to be directed to the protection of the environment and the public.

9At the TCC, the Tribunal received oral submissions from the Appellant supporting the Director’s submissions. There are no participants or presenters in this proceeding.

10The Tribunal has considered the above information and the parties’ submissions and finds that, with the s. 46 approval in place, the proposed revocation is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the EPA and is in the public interest. The Tribunal finds that the s. 46 approval addresses the protection and conservation of the natural environment and that a hearing in this proceeding is unnecessary. The Tribunal revokes the Director’s Order pursuant to s. 145.2(1) of the EPA, and dismisses the appeal pursuant to Tribunal Rule 202.

DECISION

11The Director’s Order is revoked against the Appellant and the appeal is dismissed.

Director’s Order Revoked

Appeal Dismissed

“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