Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE:
January 16, 2019
CASE NO.:
18-035
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 139(2)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant:
Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc.
Respondent:
Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal:
New terms and conditions imposed on an Environmental Compliance Approval for a facility manufacturing die cast magnesium and aluminum products for the automotive industry
Reference No.:
7675-AWSLYJ
Property Address/Description:
155 High Street East
Municipality:
Strathroy-Caradoc
Upper Tier:
County of Middlesex
ERT Case No.:
18-035
ERT Case Name:
Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard:
July 27, 2018 and August 13, 2018 by telephone conference call; October 4, 2018 in Strathroy, Ontario; November 14, 2018 by telephone conference call; and December 7, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc.
Marc McAree and Joanna Vince
Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Steven Succi
DECISION DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN AND MARCIA VALIANTE
REASONS
Background
1This appeal concerns Amended Environmental Compliance Approval No. 7675-AWSLYJ (“Amended ECA”) issued by the Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”), on June 13, 2018. The Amended ECA applies to a facility operated by Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc. (“Meridian” or “Appellant”), located at 155 High Street East, Strathroy-Caradoc Township, County of Middlesex, Ontario.
2Certain conditions of the Amended ECA require that the Appellant carry out source testing for fluorides and total suspended particulate matter at the facility, and impose three main obligations on Meridian: prepare a “Pre-Test Plan” for the source testing; complete the source testing in accordance with the approved “Pre-Test Plan”; and submit a report to the MECP regarding the conditions and results of the source testing.
3The Appellant filed a notice of appeal of the Amended ECA with the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on June 28, 2018, appealing those conditions.
4The Tribunal conducted a telephone conference call (“TCC”) with the parties on July 27, 2018, at which time the Appellant requested the Director’s consent for an adjournment for a two-week period, to allow the Appellant to prepare a Notice of Motion for a stay from compliance with the source testing requirements of the Amended ECA that are under appeal. Marc McAree, counsel for the Appellant, informed the Tribunal that the Appellant intended to comply with other source testing that is not part of the appeal. The Director agreed with the request for an adjournment, and the Tribunal allowed an adjournment until August 13, 2018, with direction to the parties to attend a TCC on that date, at which time the Tribunal would expect oral submissions on whether or not there would be any statutory bar to the Tribunal issuing an interim stay in the matter. The Tribunal also directed that the parties be prepared to set a date for a Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”) at that time.
5At the August 13, 2018 TCC, the Director agreed to an interim stay of those parts of the Amended ECA that were being appealed by the Appellant, and to dates for the exchange of documents and other procedural matters leading up to the hearing of Meridian’s Stay Motion. The Tribunal granted the Interim Stay, and scheduled the Stay Motion to be heard in Toronto on October 31, 2018. The Tribunal also scheduled the PHC in the matter, to be held on October 4, 2018 in Strathroy, Ontario.
6The PHC was held on October 4, 2018. No requests were made for status in the matter. The parties jointly requested that the Stay Motion, then scheduled for October 31, 2018, be rescheduled to December 7, 2018 to allow for settlement discussions between the parties to take place. The Tribunal agreed, and upon request from the parties, the Tribunal also agreed to provide a Tribunal Mediator to assist with settlement discussions, which were to be held at a “technical meeting” attended by the parties, their counsel and their consultants. A TCC was also scheduled for November 14, 2018 for the continuation of the PHC, at which time the parties were to provide the Tribunal with an update on the status of the settlement discussions.
7On November 14, 2018 the continuation of the PHC took place by TCC. The parties informed the Tribunal that the mediation had not resulted in a settlement of the matter, and that a hearing would be necessary. On consent of the parties, the Tribunal set dates for the hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal confirmed that the Stay Motion would take place as scheduled on December 7, 2018 and that the Interim Stay would remain in place until that motion was resolved.
8On December 6, 2018, counsel for Meridian, by letter to the Director and to the Tribunal, conveyed Meridian’s intention to withdraw its appeal pursuant to the Rules of Practice of the Tribunal (“Rules”).
9On December 7, 2018 at the outset of the scheduled Stay Motion hearing in Toronto, counsel for Meridian, Mr. McAree, confirmed his client’s intention to withdraw its appeal. Counsel for the Director indicated the Director’s consent to the withdrawal.
Issue
10The issue is whether the appeal shall be dismissed.
Relevant Rules
11The relevant provision of the Tribunal’s Rules is as follows:
Termination of Proceedings
- 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
12Under Rule 199 of the 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.
13The Appellant and the Director have confirmed with the Tribunal that they consent to the withdrawal of the appeal and that the Amended ECA under appeal is not altered by a settlement agreement. As noted above, there are no added parties, participants or presenters in the proceeding.
14Based on the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal finds that Rule 199 applies and dismisses the appeal.
DECISION
15The appeal of Amended ECA No. 7675-AWSLYJ brought by Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc. is dismissed. The hearing dates are vacated.
Appeal Withdrawn
Appeal Dismissed
“Marlene Cashin”
MARLENE CASHIN
MEMBER
“Marcia Valiante”
MARCIA VALIANTE
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