Wiggins v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2018 CanLII 8110

Environmental Review Tribunal

Tribunal de l’environnement

ISSUE DATE:

February 21, 2018

CASE NO.:

16-036

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 142.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended

Appellant:

See Appendix 1 – Appellant List

Approval Holder:

wpd Fairview Wind Incorporated

Respondent:

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Subject of appeal:

Renewable Energy Approval for Fairview Wind Project

Reference No.:

3948-9RDLRF

Property Address/Description:

various sites

Municipality:

Township of Clearview

Upper Tier:

County of Simcoe

ERT Case No.:

16-036

ERT Case Name:

Wiggins v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

Heard:

In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Kevin Elwood and Gail Elwood

Glenn Grenier and Annik Forristal

Preserve Clearview Inc.

Paul Peterson and William Thomson

Corporation of the County of Simcoe and Town of Collingwood

Julie Abouchar and Richard Butler

Corporation of the Township of Clearview

Harold Elston and Aynsley Anderson

John Wiggins

Eric Gillespie

wpd Fairview Wind Incorporated

Jesse Long and Jameel Baasit

Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Justin Jacob and Madeline Ritchie (student-at-law)

ORDER DELIVERED BY DIRK VANDERBENT AND HUGH S. WILKINS

REASONS

Background

1This decision relates to applications by John Wiggins, Gail and Kevin Elwood, Preserve Clearview Inc. (“PCI”), the Corporation of the County of Simcoe (“Simcoe County”), the Corporation of the Township of Clearview (“Clearview Township”), and the Town of Collingwood (“Collingwood”) (jointly “Applicants”) for costs against wpd Fairview Wind Incorporated (“Approval Holder”) and the Director, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) with respect to the Applicants’ successful appeals to revoke Renewable Energy Approval No. 3948-9RDLRF (“REA”), which the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ordered in its decision dated August 16, 2017.

2On February 11, 2016, Mohsen Keyvani, Director, MOECC, issued the REA to the Approval Holder, granting approval for the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of a Class 4 wind facility with eight wind turbines and a total name plate capacity of 16.4 megawatts (“Project”). The Project was proposed to be located in Clearview Township.

3In February 2016, the Applicants appealed the REA to the Tribunal under s. 142.1(2) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”). Each Applicant appealed on the grounds that the Project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life and the natural environment.

4At the commencement of the hearing on May 16, 2016, Collingwood and Simcoe County informed the Tribunal that the Approval Holder had failed to file a witness statement and supporting materials for one of its proposed witness - Anthony Cox. Dr. Cox is an expert in the area of risk assessment in public safety, energy, and transport, and fluid dynamics and turbulence. In response, the Approval Holder requested that the Tribunal extend the due date for filing this evidence. A motion on this issue was scheduled and then heard on May 19, 2016. As a result of the motion, the Tribunal extended the due date for the filing of Dr. Cox’s witness statement and supporting materials to the close of business on May 20, 2016. The due date for responding evidence was extended to May 31, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Approval Holder served and filed Dr. Cox’s materials at roughly 4:30 p.m.

5The main hearing in this proceeding was completed in June 2016. In an order dated October 7, 2016 (revised on October 18, 2016), the Tribunal found that, pursuant to s. 145.2.1(2) of the EPA, engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause both serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment, and serious harm to human health. These findings were based on evidence regarding the impact of the Project on a species at risk, specifically little brown myotis (little brown bat or Myotis lucifugus) and evidence regarding the impact of the Project on aviation safety.

6The Approval Holder requested a remedy hearing under s. 145.2.1(4) of the EPA respecting the Tribunal’s finding of serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment. More specifically, the Approval Holder proposed an amendment to the REA to include a proposed revised mitigation plan, supported by expert witness evidence. The Approval Holder did not request a remedy hearing respecting the Tribunal’s finding of harm to human health. The Applicants objected to the Approval Holder’s request and the Tribunal heard oral submissions from the parties on December 5, 2016 by telephone conference call on whether the Tribunal should hear evidence on remedy. In an Order dated December 12, 2016 (with reasons issued on February 10, 2017), the Tribunal granted the Approval Holder’s request permitting the parties to produce evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies in respect of the Tribunal’s finding of serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment. This phase of the hearing is referred to as the “remedy hearing” below.

7All of the parties participated in the remedy hearing except Mr. Wiggins.

8In its decision, dated August 16, 2017, the Tribunal found that the Approval Holder’s proposed additional measures, with certain amendments, were likely to reduce little brown myotis mortality over the life of the Project. However, as neither the Approval Holder nor the Director proposed effective means to mitigate the serious harm to human health that would be caused by the Project, the Tribunal ordered that the decision of the Director be revoked and, therefore, an amendment of the REA was unnecessary.

9Subsequent to the Tribunal’s decision on remedy, each of the Applicants brought an application for costs against the Approval Holder and/or the Director. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal dismisses those applications.

Issue

10The issue is whether the Approval Holder and/or the Director should be ordered to pay costs to the Applicants in relation to their appeals of the REA.

Relevant Legislation

11The following provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”) are relevant:

SPPA

Costs

17.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), a tribunal may, in the circumstances set out in rules made under subsection (4), order a party to pay all or part of another party’s costs in a proceeding.

Exception

(2) A tribunal shall not make an order to pay costs under this section unless,

(a) the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or a party has acted in bad faith; and

(b) the tribunal has made rules under subsection (4).

Amount of Costs

(3) The amount of the costs ordered under this section shall be determined in accordance with the rules made under subsection (4).

Rules

(4) A tribunal may make rules with respect to,

(a) the ordering of costs;

(b) the circumstances in which costs may be ordered; and

Rules

COSTS

Objectives of Costs Rules

A costs award refers to the reimbursement of reasonable and eligible expenditures incurred by a Party for participation in a proceeding before the Tribunal. The objectives of the Tribunal’s costs Rules are to: provide consistency and predictability in the awarding of costs by outlining relevant principles and evaluation criteria; to encourage responsible conduct in proceedings; and to discourage unreasonable conduct.

Procedure for Application for Costs

The Party seeking a costs award bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that any requested costs are:

(a) directly and necessarily incurred in relation to the proceeding before the Tribunal;

(b) reasonable in the circumstances;

(d) consistent with the principles and criteria outlined in these Rules.

When filing a costs application with the Tribunal, the Party seeking a costs award shall provide:

(a) an explanation of how the requirements in Rule 217 (a), (b) and (d) have been met;

(b) a summary statement of hours and fees for each lawyer and consultant, supported by time dockets, invoices and a detailed description of the activity; and

(c) a summary statement of disbursements for each lawyer or consultant supported by corresponding invoices or receipts. Where invoices or receipts are not obtainable for good reasons, the Tribunal may accept a written record of individual disbursements and associated dates.

Other Circumstances in which Costs may be Awarded

Under section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal may only order costs to be paid if the conduct or course of conduct of a Party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or if a Party has acted in bad faith.

This power applies to all proceedings before the Tribunal except proceedings under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, proceedings under the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment proceedings under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, unless the Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment proceeding is brought under the Consolidated Hearings Act.

It is expected that this power will only be used in the rare case where a Party’s conduct warrants such an award. In determining an award of costs under this Rule, the Tribunal may consider, among other things, the conduct of the requesting Party as well as whether the Party against whom a costs award is sought:

(a) failed to attend a Hearing or to send a representative when properly given notice, without contacting the Case Coordinator;

(b) failed to co-operate, changed a position without notice, or introduced an issue or evidence not previously mentioned;

(d) failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules or procedural orders;

(e) caused unnecessary adjournments or delays or failed to prepare adequately for Hearings;

(f) failed to present evidence, continued to deal with irrelevant issues, or asked questions or acted in a manner that the Tribunal determined to be improper;

(g) failed to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with Parties of similar interest;

(h) acted disrespectfully or maligned the character of another Party; and,

(i) knowingly presented false or misleading evidence.

The Tribunal is not bound to order costs when any of the instances listed in Rule 225 occurs nor does the Tribunal have to find that one of the instances occurred in order to conclude that the conduct of a Party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or that a Party has acted in bad faith. The Tribunal will also consider whether the issues respecting the conduct of such a Party can be addressed by a denial or reduction of costs in its favour rather than a costs award against it.

Discussion

12Collingwood and Simcoe County submit that the conduct of both the Approval Holder and the Director are unreasonable in that (a) the Director approved and defended a “flawed and dangerous” renewable energy approval “without knowing of and understanding the impact of wind turbine turbulence on the [nearby] Collingwood Regional Airport (“CRA”) and aircraft safety”; (b) the Director changed his position mid-hearing and withdrew support for two turbines at the submissions stage of the hearing; (c) the Approval Holder failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Order regarding the filing of Dr. Cox’s evidence and prejudiced the Applicants’ ability to prepare responding expert evidence; and (d) the Approval Holder challenged the credibility and character of one of their witnesses (Douglas McKechnie) in its final submissions without giving him a proper opportunity to respond. Collingwood and Simcoe County also seek their costs associated with the remedy hearing, stating that the Approval Holder deliberately failed to produce evidence that human health impacts could be mitigated and that the Approval Holder knew that the REA would be revoked as a result. In total, they seek $365,891.00 in costs.

13Clearview Township also submits that the conduct of both the Approval Holder and the Director are unreasonable. It submits that the Applicants were “entirely successful” in their appeals. It argues that the Approval Holder’s pattern of unreasonable conduct included (a) failure to file evidence within the timeline ordered by the Tribunal; (b) failure to notify the parties on a timely basis of its late filing of evidence; (c) failure of the Approval Holder to take steps to remedy its failure to file evidence; (d) failure to file evidence on time after its due date had been extended by the Tribunal; (e) pursuit of arguments that were not supported by its own witness; (f) advancing unacceptable mitigation options at the merits hearing that would be developed by a third party at a later date; and (g) presenting an unprepared witness. Most of these allegations relate to the filing of Dr. Cox’s evidence and to his testimony. Regarding the Director’s conduct, Clearview Township argues that it was unreasonable for the Director to review and approve the REA without properly considering the risks associated with the Project and then change his position mid-hearing after forcing a lengthy and expensive hearing. In total, Clearview Township seeks $108,755.43 in costs.

14Gail and Kevin Elwood submit that the conduct of both the Approval Holder and the Director are unreasonable in their defence of the REA’s issuance and its terms and conditions. They submit that the Approval Holder did not consult or exchange information with them or address their concerns during the REA’s application and approval process. They submit that the Approval Holder also failed to instruct its witnesses to provide evidence that is helpful to the Tribunal. Regarding the Director’s conduct, they submit that he “acted as an advocate for the Project instead of for the public”. They submit that “[t]he unreasonable conduct of both [the Approval Holder] and the Director resulted in issuance of a renewable energy approval that was both flawed and dangerous, forcing the parties, including the Elwoods, to incur significant costs and expenses in order to protect the public interest and human health”. They rely also on the submissions made by Collingwood and Simcoe County and by Clearview Township.

15The Elwoods submit that neither the Approval Holder nor the Director took responsibility for the protection of human health or the environment, which is contrary to the public interest. They submit that the conduct of the Approval Holder and the Director throughout the REA approval process and hearing was unreasonable and indicative of bad faith. In total, the Elwoods seek $179,647.26 in costs.

16PCI seeks costs against the Approval Holder solely regarding the remedy hearing. It submits that the Approval Holder’s pursuit of a remedy on the Tribunal’s finding of serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment was unreasonable, vexatious and/or undertaken in bad faith because the issue was made moot by the Approval Holder’s failure to propose remedies to the serious harm to human health that would be caused by the Project. It seeks $79,455.65 in costs.

17Mr. Wiggins did not provide detailed submissions on costs. He repeats and relies on the submissions of the other parties. He seeks costs in the amount of $119,965.89.

18In response, the Approval Holder submits that the Applicants’ submissions do not link the specific costs incurred to improper conduct or how these costs would not have been necessary but for the Approval Holder’s conduct. It submits that the Applicants’ argument is that the Approval Holder’s conduct was unreasonable because the Approval Holder’s response to the Applicants’ appeals had no merit, and the hearing, therefore, was unnecessary. It submits that this is in essence a request that the Applicants be awarded costs for being the successful parties, which is not a ground for costs under the Tribunal’s Rules. The Approval Holder submits that it followed all the legislative requirements, consulted with stakeholders and government authorities and was issued the REA. It submits that these actions were reasonable.

19In response to the Applicants’ arguments that the Approval Holder’s conduct in organizing its case and delivery of evidence was unreasonable, the Approval Holder submits that the delivery of Dr. Cox’s evidence was late due to extended due dates granted to certain Applicants for the delivery of their evidence (to which Dr. Cox was responding) and due to unexpected personal challenges experienced by Dr. Cox at the time of the missed due date. It submits that the Approval Holder’s late delivery of materials did not impact the Tribunal’s ability to commence the hearing. Moreover, the Approval Holder submits that in its oral Order made on May 19, 2016, the Tribunal determined that Dr. Cox’s evidence was necessary and it granted extensions of time for the delivery of this evidence and responding materials to it. It submits that Dr. Cox was prepared and properly participated in the proceeding and properly undertook his duties as an expert witness.

20Regarding the Applicants’ requests for costs associated with the remedy hearing, the Approval Holder submits that the need for a remedy hearing was ruled on by the Tribunal in its December 12, 2016 Order. It submits that prior to the remedy hearing, the Tribunal had not issued its final disposition on the appeals and the Approval Holder was entitled to a final ruling. The Approval Holder also submits that the Applicants’ conduct does not entitle them to costs in that they failed to co-operate, failed to comply with procedural orders, and failed to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with parties of similar interest.

21The Director submits that his conduct was reasonable throughout the course of the appeal. He submits that the reasonableness of his decision to issue the REA predates the appeal proceeding and is outside the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for awarding costs. In any event, he submits that the evidence demonstrates that he properly considered the risks associated with the Project and made efforts to address them based on the information that was available. He submits that his defence of the REA at the hearing was reasonable given that he is required under the EPA to be a party to the hearing and based on the information that was before him at the time. The Director submits that his decision to withdraw support for two of the turbines was based upon a review of all the evidence before the Tribunal, including new evidence from Dr. Cox, and was reasonable. He submits that none of the Applicants was prejudiced by this change in position.

Analysis and Findings

22When determining whether to award costs in a proceeding, the Tribunal undertakes a three-step analysis:

the Tribunal determines the threshold issue of whether a party has engaged in unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious conduct or acted in bad faith;
if there is such a finding, the Tribunal considers whether it should award costs in the particular circumstances; and
if it finds that costs should be awarded, the Tribunal must determine the amount of costs and to whom they should be paid (see Johnson v. Ontario (Ministry of Environment), [2006] O.E.R.T.D. No. 20 (“Johnson”), at paras. 22 to 24).

23Regarding the assessment of whether conduct is unreasonable, the Tribunal has consistently found that reasonableness should be considered in the context of the purpose of the EPA and impacts of the impugned conduct or course of conduct on the other parties and on the Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal will assess “whether the conduct or course of conduct interferes with the Tribunal’s ability to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of the proceeding before it” (see Baker v. Ontario (Ministry of the Environment), [2009] O.E.R.T.D. No. 55, at para. 91).

24Vexatious and bad faith conduct each includes an element of improper motivation. Vexatious conduct is conduct that has been undertaken with the intention to harass, annoy or cause financial cost to another party. Actions that are taken in bad faith include actions that a party takes with a dishonest intent and actions that are aimed to be adverse to the Tribunal process (see Johnson,at para. 31).

25Rule 225 provides a list of examples of conduct to be considered. However, the Tribunal may consider other conduct as well. The Tribunal may, in its discretion, decide not to award costs even if such conduct has occurred. In the present case, the Applicants’ allegations of such conduct include: (1) conduct of the Approval Holder and the Director assessing the Project and issuing the REA prior to the commencement of the main hearing; (2) their conduct during the main hearing; and (3) the Approval Holder’s conduct associated with the remedy hearing.

26The onus is on the Applicants to demonstrate improper conduct.

Conduct of the Approval Holder and the Director prior to the commencement of the Main Hearing

27Several Applicants argue that the conduct of the Approval Holder and the Director prior to the commencement of the main hearing was unreasonable. Collingwood and Simcoe County submit that the Director approved a flawed and dangerous renewable energy approval without knowing and understanding the impacts of the Project. Gail and Kevin Elwood submit that the Approval Holder did not consult or exchange information with them or address their concerns during the REA’s application and approval process. They also say the Director abrogated his responsibilities and attempted to assign them to others, resulting in the issuance of the REA with “known hazards to human health”.

28Rule 212 states that an award of costs “refers to the reimbursement of reasonable and eligible expenditures incurred by a Party for participation in a proceeding before the Tribunal”. Rule 225 uses similar words. It states that the costs rules apply to “proceedings before the Tribunal”. Expenditures incurred due to conduct which has occurred prior to a proceeding are not eligible for an award of costs. It is a party’s actions during the course of a proceeding that may be the subject of a costs award (see Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs (CCCTE) v. Director, MOECC, [2017] O.E.R.T.D. No. 35, (“CCCTE”), at paras. 104-105; and also Chesterman Farm Equipment Inc. v. CNH Canada Ltd., 2016 ONSC 698 at para. 186). In Dixon v. Director (Ministry of the Environment), [2014] O.E.R.T.D. No. 33, at para. 113, the Tribunal found that its jurisdiction on renewable energy approval appeals “is triggered by a request for a hearing under EPA, s. 142.1”. The Tribunal finds that in this case the Applicants’ costs incurred prior to the Appellants’ requests for a hearing, including those due to alleged improper conduct related to the terms and conditions of the REA, its issuance, and protection of human health and the environment, are not eligible for an award of costs. However, conduct in the course of defending a decision under appeal during a proceeding could be eligible for an award of costs. That question is addressed in the next sections.

Conduct of the Approval Holder and the Director during the Main Hearing

29Several Applicants submit that the conduct of the Approval Holder is unreasonable in that the Approval Holder failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Orders regarding the filing of Dr. Cox’s evidence, Dr. Cox was improperly prepared, and the Approval Holder improperly challenged the credibility and character of Mr. McKechnie. The Elwoods further submit that the Director acted as a project advocate and did not act in the public interest. The Elwoods argue that the Approval Holder and the Director acted in bad faith in that they failed to take responsibility for the protection of human health or the environment and did not act in the public interest. Several Applicants also submit that the Director’s conduct in changing his position mid-hearing was unreasonable.

30Regarding the Approval Holder’s conduct during the main hearing, the Tribunal notes that although the Approval Holder failed to serve and file Dr. Cox’s evidence by a set due date, which is an example of improper conduct listed under Rule 225, this issue was addressed by the Tribunal in its oral ruling made on May 19, 2016 permitting an extension. At that time, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was necessary to permit the extension and that there were reasonable grounds for granting the extension. The Tribunal also notes that, although the Approval Holder’s eventual service and filing of Dr. Cox’s materials was marginally late by about 30 minutes, such minor non-compliance did not cause prejudice to any party. There is also no evidence presented to the Tribunal to indicate that Dr. Cox’s preparation for the hearing was inappropriate. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Approval Holder’s conduct or course of conduct respecting this aspect of the hearing, is unreasonable, or that it interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of this proceeding.

31In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal also notes that, in making its Decision, dated August 16, 2017, the Tribunal took into account the circumstances of the Approval Holder’s submissions on Mr. McKechnie’s credibility and character and gave them the appropriate consideration given the timing and context of those submissions.

32Regarding the Director’s conduct, the Tribunal notes that in CCCTE, at paras. 110-111, the Tribunal found that it is not unreasonable for a responding party to respond to an appeal. The Appellant’s submissions do not allege that the Director undertook any of the conduct listed in Rule 225 or other conduct of that type, apart from the Director’s change of position by withdrawing his support for two of the wind turbines during the proceeding. In this proceeding, evidence emerged that had not been before the Director at the time he considered and issued the REA. Specifically, Dr. Cox, an expert in public safety risk assessment who testified on behalf of the Approval Holder, agreed under cross-examination that the location of two of the wind turbines could not be supported. The Tribunal recognizes that changing a position without notice (see Rule 225(b)) could amount to improper conduct, but it must also be recalled that a “witness has a duty to change his or her opinion where circumstances, such as the receipt of new information, require it” (see s. 9(f) of the Tribunal’s Practice Direction for Technical and Opinion Evidence). Similar considerations may apply to a party. A party should not steadfastly adhere to an unsupportable position once evidence arises that undermines that position out of fear that changing a position will necessarily lead to a costs award against it. A party is clearly entitled to re-evaluate its position in an appeal proceeding as the evidence unfolds. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Director acted responsibly in changing its position during the course of the proceeding based on the evidence that came to light. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants have not established that this conduct is unreasonable.

33Regarding the Elwoods’ allegations of bad faith, the Tribunal finds that there was no evidence presented in these costs motions to establish that the Director or the Approval Holder acted with any improper motivation or took actions that undermined the integrity of the hearing process. The Tribunal, therefore, does not find that the Director or the Approval Holder acted in bad faith.

The Approval Holder’s conduct associated with the Remedy Hearing

34Regarding costs incurred for the remedy hearing, Collingwood and Simcoe County submit that the Approval Holder deliberately failed to produce evidence that human health impacts could be mitigated and that the Approval Holder knew that the REA would be revoked as a result. PCI submits that the Approval Holder’s actions in seeking a remedy hearing regarding impacts on bats were unreasonable, vexatious and/or undertaken in bad faith because the issue was made moot by the Approval Holder’s failure to propose remedies to the serious harm to human health that would be caused by the Project.

35In its Order, dated February 10, 2017, the Tribunal found at paras. 13-16 that there were reasonable grounds to hold a remedy hearing respecting the Tribunal’s finding of serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the environment. Regarding PCI’s submission that the Approval Holder’s conduct was vexatious and/or undertaken in bad faith, as evidenced by the reasoning in the Tribunal’s Order, dated February 10, 2017, the issue of remedy was not moot at that time.

36Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no evidence presented in these costs motions to establish that the Approval Holder acted with any improper motivation or took actions that undermined the integrity of the hearing process. The Tribunal does not find that the Approval Holder’s conduct was unreasonable or vexatious or that it acted in bad faith.

Conclusions

37Having considered the Applicants’ submissions on the threshold issue of whether the conduct or course of conduct of the Approval Holder and Director was unreasonable or vexatious and whether either of them acted in bad faith, the Tribunal finds that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the Approval Holder or Director engaged in such conduct. Given this finding, there is no need for the Tribunal to address the second and third steps for determining an award of costs.

ORDER

38The Tribunal dismisses the Applicants’ applications for costs.

Applications for Costs Dismissed

“Dirk VanderBent”

DIRK VANDERBENT

VICE-CHAIR

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS

MEMBER

Appendix 1 – Appellant List

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

Appendix 1

Appellant List

Appellant Name

File No.

John Wiggins

16-036

Gail Elwood

16-037

Kevin Elwood

16-038

The Corporation of the County of Simcoe

16-039

Preserve Clearview Inc.

16-040

The Corporation of the Township of Clearview

16-041

The Town of Collingwood

16-042