Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2021
CASE NO(S).: 21-017
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 139(2)(e) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19
Appellant: Lafarge Canada Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: New terms and conditions imposed on an Environmental Compliance Approval to add the requirements established under O. Reg. 561/94: Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits – Industrial Minerals Sector
Reference No.: 4-0133-94-006
Property Address/Description: Woodstock Limestone Quarry – Lot 3, Concession 4
Municipality: City of Woodstock
Upper Tier: County of Oxford
ERT Case No.: 21-017
ERT Case Name: Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: June 24, 2021 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lafarge Canada Inc.
Lana Finney
Director, Ministry of the Environment,
Jon Bradbury
Conservation and Parks
DECISION DELIVERED BY LAURIE BRUCE AND PROCEDURAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This matter is before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) as the successor tribunal to the Environmental Review Tribunal (“ERT”), which was amalgamated with other tribunals and continued as the new consolidated OLT pursuant to s. 2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, proclaimed in force on June 1, 2021 (“OLTA”). This matter is accordingly governed by the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2This Procedural Order arises from a June 24, 2021 pre-hearing conference (“PHC”). This was the second PHC, the first of which was held on May 11, 2021.
3Lafarge Canada Inc. (“Appellant”) has appealed an amendment to Environmental Compliance Approval Number 4-0133-94-006 (the “ECA”) issued by Fariha Pannu (the “Director”) on January 27, 2021. The Appellant is seeking the revocation or alteration of the Amendment. The Amendment seeks to add the requirements of Ontario Regulation 561/94, Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits-Industrial Minerals Sector (the Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement (“MISA Regulation”)) to the ECA for the Lafarge Woodstock Quarry. The MISA Regulation applies to a handful of cement manufacturing facilities that were in operation in 1994. Schedule 1 of the MISA Regulation, which is entitled “Regulated Plants”, lists those plants which are subject to the regulation. The old Lafarge Woodstock Cement Plant is one of the plants listed on Schedule 1 of the MISA Regulation, as it was manufacturing cement at the time when the regulation took effect.
4The Tribunal was advised that no cement manufacturing is carried out at the Lafarge Woodstock Quarry. The neighbouring Lafarge Woodstock Plant (“Plant”) used to manufacture cement but has not done so since 2008. The Plant is now a grinding facility and cement terminal, whose operations consist of solely receiving, grinding, and blending together different dry cementitious products, which are then shipped out. Ms. Finney submitted that the Amendment does not appear to apply to this grinding facility, as it amends the existing ECA, which only applies to the Lafarge Woodstock Quarry.
5Ms. Finney stated that Lafarge submitted an application for an ECA amendment for their quarry in January 2020, prior to the issuance of the amended ECA that is under appeal. At approximately the same time (January 2020), Lafarge also submitted an application for an ECA for their grinding operation (not under appeal). The Lafarge initiated application for amendment and the application for ECA are under review by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Park (“MECP”) concurrent with this appeal.
6On May 11, 2021, the parties asked to have an adjournment until June 24, 2021 since the Appellant and the MECP were in discussions and a review of the Appellant’s application for an ECA amendment for their quarry and an ECA application for their grinding operation. During the June 24 PHC the parties asked the Tribunal to adjourn for three months to allow discussions to continue. Jon Bradbury stated this adjournment would allow the MECP to continue to run through its process of review of the applications. Ms. Finney stated that at that time either a further adjournment would be sought or the appeal would be withdrawn.
7At the May 11, 2021 PHC, Mike Farlow and Reed Elliot sought and were granted Presenter status. Since the first PHC, the ERT has become part of the OLT and a new set of rules govern OLT procedures. Specifically, there is no longer Presenter status. On June 24th, Messrs. Farlow and Elliot were subsequently advised that their status, should they wish to retain it, would be Participant status. Both agreed that they would like to have Participant status. Messrs. Farlow and Elliot were advised if this matter proceeds to a hearing, they will be entitled to provide the Tribunal with a written statement.
8The Tribunal has set another telephone conference call on Friday, September 24, 2021 for the continuation of the PHC.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders that:
a. Mike Farlow and Reed Elliot have been granted Participant status.
b. A continuation of the PHC will be held telephone conference call on Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11 a.m. The information for connecting to the call will be provided to the parties by the Case Coordinator.
“Laurie Bruce”
LAURIE BRUCE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal.