Environmental Law - OERT

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a qualified person to create and implement a Well Management Plan regarding a historic fuel oil spill.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the order to limit the monitoring events to 12 months.

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

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant municipality appealed three Provincial Officer's Orders requiring it to address nuisance bears at three waste disposal sites.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement based on an Action Plan developed by the municipality.

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

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for air discharges at an agricultural material processing site.

The appellants brought a motion seeking a stay of Item 3 of the order pending the disposition of their appeals.

The Director consented to the stay without condition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar to granting the stay and granted the motion on consent.

The moving parties requested to schedule a preliminary motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a site, to add parties, and to order disclosure.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request to schedule the motion, finding that the issues raised required a full hearing to resolve contested facts and that the disclosure requests were either already satisfied or irrelevant.

Two appellants sought to appeal the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for greenhouse additions.

The Commission received their Notice of Appeal one day after the 14-day statutory appeal period expired.

The Hearing Officer found there was no statutory authorization or inherent jurisdiction to extend the time limit and process the late appeal.

The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, though the appellants were permitted to request party status in a related, timely appeal.

The applicant requested the dismissal of appeals against a conditionally approved development permit for environmental remediation on the Niagara Escarpment.

The applicant argued the appeals lacked planning justification and were intended to delay development on a neighbouring property.

The Hearing Officers found the applicant failed to meet the onus under s. 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, as the appellants raised valid planning concerns regarding wildlife habitat protection.

The motion to dismiss the appeals was denied.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order directing that the continuation of the cross-examination of a witness for the approval holder take place before the Tribunal, or alternatively, directing counsel to refrain from further objections.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the transcript of the cross-examination and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the cleanup and removal of asbestos waste material on his property.

After completing the cleanup to the Director's satisfaction, the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of unprocessed waste ash deposited at a church property.

During a telephone conference call, the parties consented to a schedule for pre-hearing motions, document exchange, and peremptory hearing dates.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions formalizing the agreed-upon schedule.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a Permit to Take Water issued to Port Colborne Quarries Inc. The applications were received by the Tribunal 16 days after notice of the decision was posted on the Environmental Registry, missing the 15-day statutory deadline under s. 40 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory deadline and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order regarding waste street sweepings and sought an interim stay pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The Director consented to the interim stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar under sections 143(2) or 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the interim stay on consent.

The appellant brought three motions in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The motions sought to qualify a witness as an expert and to admit new evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motions in part, qualifying the witness as an energy consultant and admitting specific documents attached to the affidavits of the witness and another expert into evidence, while allowing the respondents to cross-examine the affiants on the newly admitted documents.

The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for a single dwelling and driveway on a property designated as Escarpment Natural Area and Escarpment Protection Area.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development met the objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, constituted a permitted use, and satisfied the applicable development criteria and Provincial Policy Statement natural heritage policies.

The Hearing Officer recommended that the decision to refuse the permit not be confirmed and that a development permit be issued subject to conditions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order limiting the scope of the proceeding to matters set out in s. 100.1(15) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal struck portions of the appellants' notices of appeal, witness statements, and document briefs that did not relate to this section.

The Tribunal also accepted the withdrawal of certain notices of allegation and witness statements, and deferred costs applications to a later date.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status on consent to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, Doug C. Thompson Fuels Ltd., and Les Reservoirs D'Acier de Granby Inc. The status was granted for the limited purpose of responding to a motion brought by the City of Kawartha Lakes regarding the permissible scope of the Gendrons' appeals and Notices of Allegation.

The approval holder brought a motion for an adjournment of the proceedings regarding a renewable energy approval for a wind park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 59(2)1.ii of O. Reg. 359/09.

The adjournment was ordered to run until the commencement of the remedy hearing.