OERT 2020

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system.

Following mediation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement setting out technical steps for rehabilitation and monitoring.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call where the parties provided an update on the implementation of the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered a further status update to be held by telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed a condition in its Environmental Compliance Approval that reduced the allowable spreading rate of septage at its disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the condition to allow a higher weekly spreading rate while maintaining a reduced monthly maximum to protect groundwater.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the amendment of the condition, and dismissed the appeal upon its withdrawal.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officers found that the appellant failed to comply with previous procedural orders requiring him to refine his issues list and confirm the retention of expert witnesses.

The Tribunal warned the appellant of the potential consequences of non-compliance, including dismissal of the appeal, and imposed a final deadline for the appellant to identify his expert witnesses and the specific issues they would address at the merits hearing.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an amended permit to take water to the instrument holder for quarry operations.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement that did not require any changes to the permit, and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding as the appeal was withdrawn on consent without altering the decision under appeal.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend and revocation of Environmental Compliance Approvals for a waste transfer station and air emissions.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellant, Wessuc Inc., appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease operation of a vehicle and retain a Qualified Person to inspect and repair it for emissions tampering.

Following several prehearing conference calls, the appellant complied with the Order and withdrew its appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new dwelling, raising concerns about well water supply in the area.

During a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed to an additional condition requiring a qualified professional to demonstrate that the proposed well would adequately service the dwelling and meet Ontario Building Code requirements.

The Hearing Officer found that the revised condition addressed the appellant's concerns and confirmed the decision to issue the development permit with the added condition.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring a written report identifying motor vehicles with non-compliant emission control systems.

The parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellant agreed to comply with the order within 60 days of withdrawing the appeal.

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

The appellant appealed the approval of a development permit for a single dwelling on the Niagara Escarpment.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officers reviewed the appellant's preliminary issues list.

The Hearing Officers struck several issues related to the Commission's internal processes, standards, and notification procedures, finding the NEHO lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate them.

The appellant was directed to refine the remaining issues and confirm the retention of a technical consultant for the merits hearing.

The appellant appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Director for sewage works on its property.

The appellant argued that the residential septic systems were 'sewage systems' under the Building Code Act, not 'sewage works' under the Ontario Water Resources Act, and therefore the Director lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that because the multiple septic systems on the single parcel of land had a combined design capacity exceeding 10,000 litres per day, they constituted 'sewage works' under the OWRA.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that individual members owned their lots, finding that the appellant was the ultimate owner of the land.

The appeal was dismissed and the Amended Approval was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the approval of a development permit application for the construction of a single dwelling.

A pre-hearing conference was held to identify parties and provide procedural directions.

The Hearing Officer granted participant status to two entities and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference to facilitate discussions to narrow the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease the use of an unregistered methyl bromide pesticide product and prepare a disposal plan.

Prior to the motion hearing for a stay, the appellant withdrew its appeal with the consent of the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the motion for a stay in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) issued for a sewage treatment plant discharging into the Winnipeg River.

The applicant argued that updated water quality baseline studies and tertiary treatment were required.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that while the applicant had the right to seek leave to appeal under s. 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, he failed to meet the test for leave under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the effluent limits were protective of the river and concluded the applicant did not demonstrate that no reasonable person could have issued the ECA.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan for a joint farming operation.

The Director refused the plan on the basis that a proposed NASM storage lagoon, owned by a waste management company, was a non-agricultural operation and required an Environmental Compliance Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Director erred by focusing solely on the storage lagoon rather than the entire agricultural operation.

The Tribunal concluded that the joint operation was an agricultural operation, the lagoon was not an intermediate operation, and the facility was exempt from EPA approval requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the NASM plan was approved.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy applied for development permits to sever three lots and establish building footprints.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approved the permits.

Several property owners appealed the decision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving a minor modification to a property boundary to address concerns about a 'pinch point' on the Bruce Trail.

The Hearing Officer found the modification to be minor and confirmed the Commission's decision with the revised site plan.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot.

The appellant raised concerns about the impact of tree removal on a shared woodlot and requested additional tree planting conditions.

The Hearing Office found that the proposed development was a permitted use, consistent with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Provincial Policy Statement, and that the existing conditions of approval adequately addressed tree removal impacts.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The applicant sought $51,562.22 in costs against the appellant following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal of a development permit for a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, alleging he caused unnecessary delays and presented misleading evidence.

The Hearing Officer applied the three-step test for costs and found that the appellant's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just and expeditious determination.

The application for costs was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring stormwater management and soil/sediment remediation and brought a motion for a stay.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend certain compliance dates and sampling requirements in the Order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, and ordered the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellants withdrew their stay motion without prejudice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to decommission an unapproved septic tank at their restaurant and route sewage to holding tanks in compliance with their Environmental Compliance Approval.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellants agreed to install an external gravity connection to route wastewater to the holding tanks and disconnect the septic system, subject to monthly engineering reports.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.

The Municipality of East Ferris issued an order under the Environmental Protection Act requiring the Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board to pay costs for cleaning up a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The School Board appealed, arguing it was not the legal successor to the 1957 school board that owned the property when the school was built.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that under the 1968 Separate Schools Act, the 1969 school board took over the functions, responsibilities, and liabilities of the 1957 board, making it the legal successor for the purposes of section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act.