Environmental Law - OERT

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order to stay all physical activities within the proposed wind project area associated with a Renewable Energy Approval.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, with reasons to follow.

The Approval Holder brought a motion to adjourn the proceeding in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind park, to allow time to adduce evidence on remedy after the Tribunal found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to a significant woodland.

The Director consented, but the Appellant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it necessary to secure a fair and just determination of the proceeding on its merits, and excluded the adjournment period from the six-month statutory deadline.

The appellants appealed an order from the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring an environmental investigation programme at a former dry cleaning facility.

After complying with the order, the appellants proposed to withdraw their appeals.

The Director and the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury consented.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals and dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion to strike portions of the appellants' Notice of Appeal, witness statements, and Notices of Allegation regarding an order to pay for the clean-up of a heating oil spill.

The City argued that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 100.1(15) of the Environmental Protection Act is strictly limited to specific considerations, excluding issues of fault, fairness, and financial hardship.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that s. 100.1(15) is a 'consider only' provision that precludes a broad 'new hearing' approach.

The Tribunal also ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for contribution and indemnification, which must be pursued in civil court.

The motion was granted, and the scope of the hearing was restricted accordingly.

The appellants appealed a Work Order and an Implementation Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding the deposit of contaminated soil.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the installation of a fill cap.

Upon confirmation that the fill cap was installed, the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to amend the Work Order by revoking Work Item No. 1 and to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be in the public interest, amended the Work Order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct a single dwelling.

During a pre-hearing conference, two individuals requested participant and presenter status, citing concerns about drainage and runoff impacts from the proposed development.

The Hearing Officer granted both requests, finding the individuals had a genuine interest in the proceeding and could make a relevant contribution.

Procedural directions and a hearing schedule were also ordered.

The appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry herpetologist to testify about impacts on Blanding's turtles.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons but simultaneously granted the proposed witness's application to cancel it, finding that while the evidence was relevant, it was not necessary because the appellant was already calling its own expert on the subject.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.

The appellants brought motions to stay various sections of a Director's Order requiring them to maintain environmental protection measures and assess environmental conditions at steel mill and mining operations.

The Tribunal granted the Company Directors' motion to stay section 2.9 on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Company and Company Officers' motion to stay section 2.11, but dismissed the request to stay the remaining sections.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara issued an order under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to recover clean-up costs related to a spill.

Several named persons appealed the order and filed a Notice of Allegation against other parties, including the Town of Fort Erie.

The Town of Fort Erie requested party status in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the Town party status, finding its interests may be directly and substantially affected by the outcome of the appeal.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for motions and the main hearing.

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.

The appellants, Wayne and Liana Gendron, brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding an order to pay clean-up costs for a furnace oil spill.

The appellants argued that the hearing should be adjourned until after the conclusion of a parallel civil action brought by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality had undertaken not to pursue its civil action if the Tribunal hearing proceeded, thereby eliminating the risk of duplicative proceedings and double recovery.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot mix asphalt plant and aggregate depot.

The applicant raised concerns regarding noise, air emissions, and the facility's location, but failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the Ministry's engineers.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding the applicant did not meet the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The appellants brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of their appeals regarding an order to pay for the clean-up of a spill.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion to adjourn, with reasons to follow, and directed that a status telephone conference call be held to address procedural issues.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

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

The appellants appealed a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change order requiring them to assess and remediate contaminated soil deposited at a former rail line property.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellants agreed to implement a Risk Management Plan, including capping the soil and ongoing monitoring.

The parties requested provisional approval of the settlement and the withdrawal of one work item from the original order.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, pending confirmation of the fill cap installation.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind power project, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment, specifically focusing on Barn Owls and Bald Eagles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving that the project would cause such harm.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the project was unlikely to result in bird strikes or significant habitat displacement, and confirmed the Director's decision to issue the REA.

The appellant in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.