Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: January 30, 2019
CASE NO.: 17-040
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 100.1(7) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: Steven Monaghan (File No. 17-040)
Appellant: Ajax Auto Recyclers Ltd. (File No. 17-041)
Appellant: Ajax Recycling Depot Ltd. (File No. 17-042)
Appellant: Ajax Auto Wreckers (2003) Inc. (File No. 17-043)
Respondent: Corporation of the Town of Ajax
Subject of appeal: Order to pay costs and expenses in relation to the clean-up of a spill
Property Address/Description: 140-16 Dowty Road
Municipality: Town of Ajax
Upper Tier: Regional Municipality of Durham
ERT Case No.: 17-040
ERT Case Name: Monaghan v. Ajax (Town)
Heard: November 30, 2018 by telephone conference call and in writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Ajax Auto Recyclers Ltd., Ajax Recycling Depot Ltd., Ajax Auto Wreckers (2003) Inc., and Steven Monaghan
Talia Gordner
Corporation of the Town of Ajax
Cameron Murkar
ORDER DELIVERED BY JUSTIN DUNCAN, GRAHAM REMPE AND MARCIA VALIANTE
REASONS
Background
1On May 29, 2017, the Corporation of the Town of Ajax (“Town”) issued an order pursuant to s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to Ajax Auto Recyclers Ltd., Ajax Recycling Depot Ltd., Ajax Auto Wreckers (2003) Inc., and Steven Monaghan (“Appellants”) directing them to pay $264,514.14 to the Town in relation to costs and expenses incurred by it in containing, cleaning and monitoring oily contamination found in a municipal storm channel at Westney Road and Fairall Street (“Order”).
2The Appellants filed a notice of appeal with the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on June 12, 2017 seeking that the Order be set aside on various grounds.
3The Town has also filed a civil claim in the Superior Court of Justice (“Superior Court”) against the Appellants in relation to the contamination. Charges have also been filed against the Appellants under the Town’s sewer-use by-law.
4The Tribunal held a Pre-hearing Conference (“PHC”) on September 13, 2017 and continued the PHC by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on October 4 and 23, 2017. During these PHC appearances, the parties raised the issue as to the appropriate order in which the three proceedings should be heard. The parties jointly requested an adjournment of this proceeding so that the Appellants could bring a motion before the Superior Court to address this issue. In an order dated November 17, 2017, the Tribunal granted the parties’ request to adjourn the appeal.
5A further TCC was held on February 8, 2018 following the hearing of the motion before the Superior Court at which time the Tribunal continued the adjournment to a further TCC to be held on April 16, 2018.
6Justice Salmers released his Endorsement on April 13, 2018, in which he ordered that the action in the Superior Court be temporarily stayed and that the request to stay the Tribunal proceeding be dismissed. During the April 16, 2018 TCC, at the request of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further TCC for May 8, 2018 to allow the Appellants time to consider the decision of Justice Salmers.
7During the May 8, 2018 TCC, counsel for the Appellants advised the Tribunal that leave to appeal Justice Salmers’ order had been sought in the Divisional Court. On request of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned this appeal to a further TCC to be held on August 23, 2018.
8Prior to the August 23, 2018 TCC, the parties requested in writing that the next TCC be delayed by several months in order to follow the Divisional Court’s decision on the Appellants’ motion for leave. The Tribunal rescheduled the TCC to November 20, 2018.
9During the November 20, 2018 TCC, the parties advised the Tribunal that the Divisional Court had dismissed the Appellants’ motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Salmers. During the TCC, the Tribunal informed the parties that it would proceed to schedule the hearing and directed them to discuss hearing dates and filing dates leading to a hearing and provide the Tribunal with a joint proposal in writing for the Tribunal’s consideration.
10The parties filed a proposed schedule with the Tribunal on December 17, 2018. The Tribunal accepts the proposed schedule. It did not include a filing date for any potential reply evidence, so the Tribunal has inserted one. The filing and hearing dates to govern the remaining steps of this appeal are set out in the Order below.
ORDER
11The Tribunal orders that the following dates are to govern the remaining steps of this appeal, subject to further direction if required:
Event
Date
Town of Ajax disclosure to be provided to the Appellants in accordance with Rule 166 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”)
February 28, 2019
The Appellants’ disclosure to be provided to the Town of Ajax in accordance with Rule 166
April 1, 2019
Witness statements and documents to be relied upon at the hearing to be served and filed in accordance with Rules 167 and 170
April 30, 2019
Reply witness statements and documents to be relied upon, if any, to be served and filed
May 24, 2019
Hearing
June 10-14, 2019 at 10 a.m. in: Council Chambers Municipal Building 65 Harwood Avenue South Ajax, ON L1S 2H9
Hearing Scheduled
Procedural Directions Ordered
“Justin Duncan”
JUSTIN DUNCAN
VICE-CHAIR
“Graham Rempe”
GRAHAM REMPE
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 Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248