OERT 2019

The applicants sought a development permit to construct a second dwelling on their farm property within the Niagara Escarpment to facilitate farm succession.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) conditionally approved the permit, which was appealed by the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment.

The Hearing Officer recommended refusing the permit, finding that the proposal did not meet the strict requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Plan for secondary or temporary farm dwellings.

However, the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry rejected the Hearing Officer's recommendation and confirmed the NEC's decision to issue the conditional development permit.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a rifle range and stadium on a cross-country ski property.

Immediately prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment due to a serious family illness.

The other parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officer granted a peremptory adjournment to allow the appellant to attend, noting that failure to attend would result in the confirmation of the permit.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a completed application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for status from various individuals and entities.

The Tribunal granted party status to a downgradient golf course, participant status to a co-owner of the subject property, and presenter status to neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also set procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing.

Lafarge Canada Limited appealed three Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding alleged exceedances of total suspended solids and reporting failures at its quarry and cement terminal.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director agreed to amend the orders to remove certain contraventions and associated penalties, as the discharges did not meet the definition of 'process effluent'.

Lafarge agreed to pay the remaining penalty amounts totaling $80,151.40.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, amended the orders, and dismissed the appeals.

The Appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a municipal order requiring them to pay $75,290.81 for the cleanup of spilled pollutants under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order was issued in March 2017, but the notice of appeal was filed over two and a half years later.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants had received notice of the order shortly after its issuance and had legal representation shortly thereafter.

As the Appellants failed to meet the statutory exception of not receiving notice, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Tribunal held pre-hearing conferences regarding consolidated appeals related to a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The appeals involve a municipal order for clean-up costs and a Director's Order requiring remediation work.

The parties engaged in mediation and resolved most issues.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a one-day hearing to address the single remaining issue in the Director's Order appeal.

Several local residents appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new chicken broiler barn.

During the pre-hearing conference, the applicant explained that the new barn would improve animal welfare and potentially reduce odours and truck noise.

Following this explanation, all attending appellants withdrew their appeals.

As one appellant failed to appear and the rest withdrew, the Commission's decision was deemed confirmed pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Town of Ajax issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring the appellants to pay costs incurred by the municipality in cleaning up a spill.

The appellants appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, the settlement funds were paid, and the Town rescinded the order.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order to be consistent with the purpose of the Act and in the public interest, and accordingly revoked the order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a completed application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

During a status update telephone conference call, the parties proposed a stay of the Director's Order on consent.

The Tribunal found that the requested stay satisfied the statutory tests under the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, as it would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay pending the outcome of the appeal and directed the parties to mediation.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit to demolish accessory structures and construct a single dwelling and detached garage.

The refusal was based on non-compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae due to an adjacent chicken farm.

The Hearing Officers found that while the application did not meet the strict MDS setback, a minor variance was available and appropriate in the specific circumstances, given the lack of alternative locations, the required environmental setback, and proposed odour mitigation measures.

The Minister approved the development permit subject to conditions.

The applicant sought to have three Permits to Take Water issued to Goodyear Farm Ltd. revoked under section 61(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that section 61(1) provides for a review by the Minister, not the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requiring them to pay $207,477.88 for remedial work related to a spill.

The Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference by telephone.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange relevant documents by specified dates and directed them to advise if they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to sever a lot and construct two dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to add a condition requiring a Tree Preservation and Planting Plan.

The Hearing Officer found the additional condition strengthened protections for the Escarpment lands and confirmed the Commission's decision with the revised conditions pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amendment to an Environmental Compliance Approval for a 12-month pilot program to process municipal de-watered biosolids.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable due to the proximity of residential dwellings, cumulative impacts, the operator's track record, and potential health risks.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but failed to meet the test for leave to appeal under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, as the Director's decision was reasonable and included appropriate conditions to mitigate environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks proposed to revoke a 2011 Director's Order against several appellants regarding the decommissioning of a waste disposal site and sewage works at a former paper mill.

The Tribunal found the revocation to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as the majority of the required environmental work had been completed by another party, sufficient financial assurance was held for the remaining work, and one of the appellants had passed away.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the order and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for a rifle range and stadium.

At a second pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner sought party status due to safety concerns.

The tribunal granted the request on consent and directed the parties to provide a joint proposal for hearing dates.

The appellants brought a motion for an order requiring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to disclose all records relating to an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the request was a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the documents were likely relevant to the appellants' grounds for appeal regarding whether pre-existing septic systems were properly decommissioned.

The motion for disclosure was granted.

The Appellant appealed the terms and conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval for domestic sewage works.

The Director requested a telephone conference to confirm whether the Appellant also represented the individual sewage works owners.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had the necessary legal authority to pursue the appeal on behalf of the individual owners based on an agency agreement, and directed the parties to provide a joint proposal for scheduling a stay motion.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take steps regarding street sweepings delivered to various properties.

The parties reached a proposed settlement agreement with a Terms of Reference for assessing and addressing contaminants, but the appellant would not withdraw its appeal until the measures were completed.

The Tribunal declined to approve the Proposed Minutes of Settlement as a partial settlement is not contemplated by its Rules of Practice, but accepted the process and adjourned the appeal to allow the parties to carry out the work.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system, including ceasing the discharge of raw sewage and retaining a licensed waste hauler.

Following the dismissal of a stay motion, the parties requested Tribunal-assisted mediation at a prehearing conference.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a mediation session, with a further prehearing conference to follow if mediation is unsuccessful.