Environmental Review Tribunal
Tribunal de l’environnement
ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2020
CASE NOS.: 20-003
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: Earl Paddock Transportation Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Order to prepare and submit a written report identifying all motor owned, operated or leased vehicles under contract in which the emission control systems or devices are not in compliance with section 7 of O. Reg. 361/98
Property Address/Description: SCB-1027-19-3987
Municipality: Stoney Creek
Upper Tier: Hamilton
ERT Case No.: 20-003
ERT Case Name: Earl Paddock Transportation Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Earl Paddock Transportation Inc.
Counsel James Kendick Laney Paddock
HEARD: July 2 and September 11, 2020 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Laurie M. Bruce, Member
DECISION
REASONS
Background
1On December 12, 2019, Michael Cormier, Provincial Officer with the Ministry of the Environment, Parks and Conservation (“MECP”), issued Order SCB-1027-19-3987 (“Provincial Officer’s Order”) to Earl Paddock Transportation Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to the Provincial Officer’s authority under the Environmental Protection Act s. 157.
2The Provincial Officer’s Order required the Appellant to prepare and submit to Provincial Officer Cormier a written report by January 31, 2020 which includes:
i. The identification of all motor owned, operated by or leased under contract to Earl Paddock Transportation Inc. in which the emission control systems or devices are not in compliance with s. 7 of O. Reg. 361/98;
ii. A description of the steps taken in order to identify which power units have emission control systems or devices that are out of compliance with s. 7 of O. Reg. 361/98;
iii. For each power unit whose emission control system or device is out of compliance with s. 7 of O. Reg 361/98, identification of measures to repair the cause of the con-compliance;
iv. A list of vehicle identification numbers of all known “Gliders” in the company’s active feet; and
v. A list of vehicle identification numbers of all known vehicles sold by Earl Paddock Transportation Inc. between the calendar years of 2018-2019.
3The Provincial Offier’s Order was deemed confirmed as a Director’s Order.
4On January 10, 2020, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Environmental Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”).
5On a telephone conference call on July 2, 2020, counsel for the Director, James Kendick, and counsel for the Appellant, Laney Paddock, advised the Tribunal that Ms. Paddock had provided the MECP with a proposal and the parties would be continuing with settlement discussions.
6At a further teleconference call on September 11, 2020, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a resolution and that the Appellant had agreed to comply with the order within 60 days after the withdrawl of its appeal.
7On September 18, 2020, Ms. Paddock submitted a letter to the Tribunal stating:
….in accordance with Rule 201 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice…the parties have agreed that the appeal shall be withdrawn on a without costs basis, and that [the Appellant] shall be given 60 days from the date of this withdrawal (September 18, 2020) to comply with the Provincial Officer’s Order that is the subject of the appeal.
Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedures
8Rule 201 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedures states:
- Where there has been a proposed withdrawal of an appeal as part of a settlement agreement not objected to by any Party that alters the decision under appeal, the Tribunal shall review the settlement agreement and consider whether the agreement is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the relevant legislation and whether the agreement is in the public interest. The Tribunal shall also consider the interests of Participants and Presenters. After consideration of the above factors, the Tribunal may decide to continue with the Hearing or issue a decision dismissing the proceeding.
Issue
9The issue is whether the Tribunal should accept the proposed settlement pursuant to Rule 201 and dismiss the proceeding.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
10The Appellant has agreed to comply fully with the original Provincial Officer’s Order, deemed confirmed as a Director’s Order, with the exception of meeting the dates that were originally set and have now passed. The Tribunal finds that the extension of time for the Appellant to complete and submit the written report with the required information still allows the environmental protection objectives to be achieved.
11The Tribunal finds that the suggested amendment of the Director’s Order to amend the deadlines to November 17, 2020 is consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.
DECISION
12The Tribunal accepts the withdrawal of the appeal pursuant to the settlement proposed by the parties and dismisses the appeal. The Director is directed to amend the deadline for compliance with the order to November 17, 2020.
Settlement Agreement Accepted
Appeal Withdrawn
Appeal Dismissed
Director Directed to Amend Order
“Laurie M. Bruce”
LAURIE M. BRUCE
MEMBER
If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.olt.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Environmental Review Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Ontario Land Tribunals Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248