Environmental Review Tribunal

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 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 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 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.

The parties appealed a Municipal Order and a Director's Order regarding the clean-up of a heating oil spill at a former school site.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that included a remediation action plan and an amendment to the Director's Order regarding sampling requirements.

The Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the settlement, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish existing structures and construct a large single dwelling on a property designated as Escarpment Protection Area.

The appellant argued the proposed development's size and visual impact would negatively affect the open landscape character and scenic resources of the area.

The Hearing Officer accepted the expert evidence of the applicant and the Commission that the proposed development is a permitted use and accords with the relevant objectives and development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

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

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation of petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs discharged from its metals recycling facility onto an adjacent municipal golf course.

Following completion of the required remediation work, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director withdrew the requirement to provide an alternative irrigation water source and the appellant withdrew its appeal of the waste handling requirements.

The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the settlement as consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a completed application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for status from various individuals and entities.

The Tribunal granted party status to a downgradient golf course, participant status to a co-owner of the subject property, and presenter status to neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also set procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing.

The Appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a municipal order requiring them to pay $75,290.81 for the cleanup of spilled pollutants under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order was issued in March 2017, but the notice of appeal was filed over two and a half years later.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants had received notice of the order shortly after its issuance and had legal representation shortly thereafter.

As the Appellants failed to meet the statutory exception of not receiving notice, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

Lafarge Canada Limited appealed three Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding alleged exceedances of total suspended solids and reporting failures at its quarry and cement terminal.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the Director agreed to amend the orders to remove certain contraventions and associated penalties, as the discharges did not meet the definition of 'process effluent'.

Lafarge agreed to pay the remaining penalty amounts totaling $80,151.40.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, amended the orders, and dismissed the appeals.