Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: November 16, 2017
CASE NO.: 17-038
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended, and section 100(4) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40, as amended
Appellant: William J. Warner (File No. 17-038)
Appellant: William J. Warner Investments Ltd. (File No. 17-039)
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Subject of appeal: Order issued to conduct certain work in relation to solid waste and wash water generated by truck washing
Reference No.: 4275-AKRNGV-DO
Property Address/Description: Site 1 – 8976 Widder Road Site 2 – Lots 21, 22, Concession 2
Municipality: Municipality of Lambton Shores
Upper Tier: County of Lambton
ERT Case No.: 17-038
ERT Case Name: Warner v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)
Heard: In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
William J. Warner and William J. Warner Investments Ltd.
Counsel
Paula Lombardi
Parties
Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Counsel
Nadine Harris and Mitchel Boughs
DECISION DELIVERED BY MAUREEN CARTER-WHITNEY
REASONS
Background
1On May 8, 2017, Mike Moroney, Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change issued Director’s Order No. 4275-AKRNGV-DO (“Director’s Order”) to William J. Warner and William J. Warner Investments Ltd. (“Appellants”). The Director’s Order applies to two sites, one at 8976 Widder Road and the other at Lots 21 and 22, Concession 2, both in the Municipality of Lambton Shores, County of Lambton.
2The Director’s Order requires that the Appellants carry out a number of work items relating to the wash water and solid wastes generated by the Appellants’ truck washing process. The Appellants operate a truck and livestock trailer washing and disinfecting facility.
3On May 23, 2017, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal of the Director’s Order with the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”).
4On August 22, 2017, the Tribunal conducted a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) in this matter. At the PHC, Paula Lombardi appeared as counsel for the Appellants, and Nadine Harris and Mitchel Boughs appeared as co-counsel for the Director. No one appeared to request status in the proceeding.
5During the PHC, the Tribunal scheduled the hearing for November 29 to December 1, 2017, and set a schedule for disclosure.
6On November 2, 2017, Ms. Lombardi wrote to the Tribunal to advise that the issues that gave rise to the appeals had been resolved without requiring alteration to the Director’s Order, and to formally withdraw the Appellants’ appeals. She requested that the Tribunal dismiss the appeals under Rule 199 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”).
7On November 9, 2017, Ms. Harris confirmed in writing that the Director agrees to the withdrawal of the appeals and that no alteration to the Director’s Order is required.
Issue
8The issue is whether the appeals shall be dismissed because the proposed withdrawal of the appeals is agreed to by all parties and the Director’s Order is not altered.
Relevant Rules
9The relevant provisions of the Tribunal’s Rules are as follows:
Termination of Proceedings
A Proponent or Applicant who proposes to withdraw an application, an Appellant who proposes to withdraw an appeal, or a Director, Risk Management Inspector or Official, Authority or municipality who proposes to revoke a decision that is the subject of the appeal shall notify the Tribunal, other Parties, Participants and Presenters by letter. Any Party, Participant or Presenter who objects to the proposed withdrawal of an appeal or revocation, with the exception of the revocation of an order made under section 74 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, shall notify the Tribunal and the other Parties, Participants and Presenters within ten days of the date of the letter.
Where there has been a proposed withdrawal of an appeal agreed to by all Parties and the decision under appeal is not altered by a settlement agreement, a proposed withdrawal of an application, or a proposed revocation of an order made under section 74 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Tribunal shall issue a decision dismissing the proceeding.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
10Under Rule 199 of the Tribunal’s Rules, the Tribunal shall dismiss an appeal where there has been a proposed withdrawal that has been agreed to by all parties, and the decision under appeal is not altered.
11The Appellants and the Director have confirmed with the Tribunal, in writing, that they consent to the withdrawal of the appeals and that the Director’s Order under appeal is not altered by a settlement agreement. As noted above, there are no added parties, participants or presenters in the proceeding.
12Based on the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds that Rule 199 applies and dismisses the appeals.
DECISION
13The appeals of Director’s Order No. 4275-AKRNGV-DO brought by William J. Warner and William J. Warner Investments Ltd. are dismissed.
Appeals Withdrawn
Appeals Dismissed
“Maureen Carter-Whitney”
MAUREEN CARTER-WHITNEY
VICE-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