OERT 2017

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to construct a dug pond for agricultural purposes.

During a status update teleconference, the Hearing Officer considered whether to combine this appeal with a related appeal concerning a greenhouse expansion on the same property, and whether to delay scheduling the hearing pending the outcome of Freedom of Information requests.

The Hearing Officer determined that the proceedings could not be combined without the consent of all parties, but ordered that they be heard consecutively.

The Hearing Officer also scheduled hearing dates and document disclosure deadlines, subject to review at a subsequent pre-hearing conference if the pending FOI requests caused prejudice.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take various actions regarding street sweepings delivered to private properties between 2004 and 2011.

The City sought a stay of the Order pending the appeal.

The Director consented to a stay of the items requiring physical investigations and remedial work, but opposed staying the items requiring the City to share information and conduct a forensic audit to identify affected properties.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found no statutory bar to a stay and a serious issue to be tried.

However, the Tribunal held the City failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its reputation or from potential litigation.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience and public interest favoured denying the stay for the disputed items to ensure affected property owners receive proper notice and information.

The stay was granted in part on consent and dismissed for the disputed items.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to install lighting on cross-country ski trails.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to modify the conditions of approval to restrict the time and activities for which lighting could be used.

The Hearing Officer approved the settlement, finding the revised conditions addressed the appellant's concerns and were in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and confirmed the decision to issue the permit with the revised conditions.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a qualified person to create and implement a Well Management Plan regarding a historic fuel oil spill.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the order to limit the monitoring events to 12 months.

The Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant municipality appealed three Provincial Officer's Orders requiring it to address nuisance bears at three waste disposal sites.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement based on an Action Plan developed by the municipality.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the revocation of the orders, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for air discharges at an agricultural material processing site.

The appellants brought a motion seeking a stay of Item 3 of the order pending the disposition of their appeals.

The Director consented to the stay without condition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar to granting the stay and granted the motion on consent.

The moving parties requested to schedule a preliminary motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a site, to add parties, and to order disclosure.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that the issues raised required a full hearing to resolve contested facts and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or irrelevant.