Environmental Review Tribunal

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to remediate groundwater contamination at a property.

The Environmental Review Tribunal repeatedly directed the appellants to provide a certified list of property owners within 120 metres of the subject property, as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellants failed to comply, and their counsel sent a contemptuous email refusing to provide the information.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 16 for failure to comply with its directions.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the consolidation of two appeals related to an Environmental Penalty Order and a Director's Order Amendment concerning water quality and acid mine drainage at the Kearney Graphite Mine Site.

The Tribunal also granted party status to Algonquin Eco Watch and participant status to Magnetawan First Nation, POWR-MAG, and the Kearney Watershed Environmental Foundation, and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a rifle range and stadium on a cross-country ski property.

At a pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner requested party status due to concerns about contamination, water supply, and noise.

The hearing officer granted the request on consent and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference.

The appellant appealed a condition of a development permit issued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission that required an agreement precluding the use of the property for business purposes to be registered on title.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to amend the condition to remove the requirement for registration on title, while keeping the agreement itself.

The Hearing Officer confirmed the amended permit pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, finding the revised condition correct and sufficient to protect the Commission's interests.

The appellant nursing home brought a motion for a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to pump and dispose of sewage off-site due to a malfunctioning septic system.

The appellant argued that the costs of compliance would cause irreparable financial harm, potentially leading to closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm, as the short-term costs were not shown to be fatal to the business.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the Director's precautionary approach to protect water resources.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to provide supporting information related to two discharges.

The Appellants brought a motion requesting a stay of the Director's Order pending the outcome of the appeal.

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

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single dwelling.

The Hearing Officer addressed preliminary issues regarding notice of the application and decision, and established a procedural schedule for a two-day hearing to commence on June 26, 2019.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties.

The appellants requested a continuation of a previously granted stay of certain portions of the Director's Order while they finalized a conceptual site model and work plan.

The Director consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

In an appeal of a development permit approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the appellants requested that the hearing be held in Toronto and that the Hearing Officer conduct a site visit.

The Hearing Officer denied the request to hold the hearing in Toronto, ordering it to be held in Thornbury near the subject property in accordance with the Tribunal's usual practice.

The request for a site visit was granted, as it would assist in understanding the evidence regarding the scale of the proposed development and its potential impact on a large oak tree and water flow.

Procedural dates for the hearing were also scheduled.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of demolition waste from its property.

The appellant argued the materials were being sorted for recycling and were not waste, and that the Ministry erred in treating the movement of materials as a deposit on a new site.

The Tribunal found that the co-mingled demolition debris constituted waste under the Environmental Protection Act and that leaving it on the site for an extended period established an unapproved waste disposal site.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Director's Order was upheld with amended compliance dates.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial work following a discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs from its metals recycling facility into a municipal drain.

The parties entered into Minutes of Partial Settlement and Further Minutes of Partial Settlement to amend certain items in the Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement agreements and found that the proposed amendments were consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Director to amend the order accordingly and scheduled a continuation of the hearing to address the remaining outstanding issues.

The appellants appealed a preventative measures order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a steel mill and mining properties owned by an insolvent company.

Following the sale of the company under CCAA proceedings and the execution of agreements to fund and implement environmental action plans, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation of the order to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to revoke the order and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a greenhouse and herb operation.

At a pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner requested party status, citing concerns about potential cannabis cultivation and light pollution.

The Hearing Officers granted the neighbour party status, finding he had a genuine, direct, and substantial interest in the application and appeal.

A procedural schedule was also established for the upcoming hearing.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals of a development permit approval, several individuals requested party and participant status.

The Hearing Officer granted party status to two neighbours whose interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, and participant status to the past president of the condominium corporation who could provide relevant context.

The matter was adjourned to allow for settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and other actions at a site in Brockville.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties consented to a stay of Items 1 to 15 of the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from issuing a stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for the hearing and next steps.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct a vapour intrusion assessment program at residential properties adjacent to their industrial facility.

After complying with the order and conducting the required sampling, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

With the consent of the Director and no objection from the presenter, the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.