Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 20, 2021
CASE NO(S).: 21-030
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28, as amended
Appellant: Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (File No. 21-030)
Appellant: Corporation of the Township of Tiny (File No. 21-031)
Instrument Holder: CRH Canada Group Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Decision to issue a Permit to Take Water from a source pond, issued under section 34.1 of Ontario Water Resources Act for the washing of aggregates at the Teedon Pit
Reference No.: 6258-BRDJ2M
Property Address/Description: Lots 79 and 80, Concession 1
Municipality: Original Township of Tiny
Upper Tier: County of Simcoe
ERT Case No.: 21-030
ERT Case Name: Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: August 3, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations (“FOTTSA”) | Joseph Castrilli |
| Corporation of the Township of Tiny (“Township”) | Sarah Hahn, Shannon Dawson (student-at-law) |
| CRH Canada Group Inc. (“CRH”) | Jonathan Kahn, Maia Jorgensen (co-counsel, in absentia) |
| Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks | Isabelle O’Connor, Madeline Ritchie |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID. L. LANTHIER AND PIERRE BRUNELLE ON AUGUST 3, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted by the Tribunal in these appeals pursuant to s. 38 of the Environmental Bill of Rights,1993 (“EBR”).
BACKGROUND
2In response to an application by CRH for a renewal of its Permit to Take Water for the subject property known as the Teedon Pit, in the Township of Tiny, the Director of MECP issued a Permit to Take Water No. 6258-BRDJ2M (the “Permit”) with Conditions on January 19, 2021. There was a subsequent amendment due to a typographical error.
3The information contained within the pleadings, and the decisions of the Tribunal to date, indicate that the purpose of the Permit is to continue pit operations, accessing water resources required for the washing of aggregate and other operational requirements. Although the specifics of the entirety of the process is more detailed, in its simplest form, under the Permit the water used in the aggregate washing is taken from a source pond and ground well, utilized, subsequently discharged into settling ponds and then finally returned to the source pond in a closed loop system.
4On January 27, 2021 and January 29, 2021, FOTTSA and the Township, respectively, filed applications for leave to appeal the Director’s decision to issue the Permit under s. 38 of the EBR.
5On April 19, 2021, the Tribunal issued its Decision and Order on the two applications for leave under s. 38 and s. 41 of the EBR, granting leave to both FOTTSA and the Township to appeal the Director’s decision in its entirety.
6FOTTSA then filed its Notice of Appeal on April 26, 2021. The Township followed and filed its Notice of Appeal on May 3, 2021.
7Subsequently, as a result of the automatic stay of the operation of the Permit under s. 42(1) of the EBR, CRH brought a motion to remove the automatic stay.
8An Interim Order on the Motion issued from the Tribunal on May 11, 2021, implementing a consent arrangement to remove the automatic stay with stipulated conditions. The hearing of the Motion on a final basis was coordinated.
9The Tribunal is informed that as of the date of this CMC, the Motion has now been dealt with and a final Order is to issue, implementing a consensual lifting of the automatic stay, subject to agreed-upon stipulated conditions, pending the determination of the appeals.
REQUESTS FOR STATUS
10The Tribunal received no requests for either Participant or Party status from any person or entity with respect to these appeals.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
11In accordance with its mandate, the Tribunal inquired with respect to settlement or Tribunal-led mediation. The Tribunal is advised that the parties may pursue discussion with respect to a resolution of the issues, and the Director has indicated that it is willing to facilitate such discussions if all parties are willing. The indication is that, at this point, Tribunal-led mediation is not likely warranted, but the parties will, if appropriate, contact the Tribunal’s Strategic Resolution Advisor for the purposes of requesting and scheduling mediation.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
12Prior to the CMC, the Panel received a very preliminary template draft of a Procedural Order submitted jointly by the parties, which contained no substantive details or specific pre-hearing filing requirements.
13Separately, the Tribunal received a draft Issues List prepared by FOTTS