Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 03, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004856
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 2, as amended
Appellant: Rebecca Janson
Applicant: Aecon Group Inc. c/o Jake Palleschi
Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to establish a new infrastructure use by installing fiber optic internet cable, install service line connections, and installing new and replacement equipment pedestals and cabinets
Reference Number: H/S/2021-2022/469
Property Address: Right-of-Way Cedar Springs Road
Municipality/UT: City of Burlington, Region of Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004856
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004856
OLT Case Name: Janson v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: March 22, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Rebecca Janson
No one appeared
Aecon Group Inc.
Benjamin Zulerons*, Carlos Raposo*
Bell Canada
Matthew Stojanowski
REPORT of the tribunal DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER AND WARREN MORRIS
1The Tribunal Members constitute as Hearing Officers and the Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearings Office (“NEHO”) for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”).
2The matter before the NEHO is an appeal of a Development Permit issued:
To establish a new infrastructure use by installing fibre optic internet cable within the right-of-way of Cedar Springs Road between north of Britannia Road and Dundas Street; along Britannia Road between west of Cedar Springs Road and Willowgrove Trail; Blind Line between Britannia Road and Colling Road; and sections of the following within the vicinity of Cedar Springs: Watson Drive, Highview Drive, Highpoint Court, 1 Side Road, 2 Side Road, Medad Springs Court, and Colling Road;
to install service line connections; and
to install new and replacement equipment pedestals and cabinets
3The Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) conditionally approved the Development Permit Application on October 17, 2022.
4The concerns expressed in Rebecca Janson’s (the “Appellant”) written appeal to the NEC were related to concerns of harm both to the environment and health. In the Appellant’s own words:
…report after report are showing an increased number of cases of health issues rising in residents that live within 200 meters of newly constructed fiber optic internet cable. The power supply that converts fiber optic light waves, creating the electrical data signals generate high amounts of wide-spectrum EMI (electromagnetic interference) and in turn are increasing the amount of people reporting electrical sensitivity. The findings are alarming.
5The scheduled event before the NEHO was a hearing. At the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The NEC had previously communicated to the Tribunal in writing that it did not plan to attend the hearing as it was of the view that the Appellant’s concerns were not a consideration under the NEPDA.
6The Hearing Officers held down the hearing for 15 minutes beyond the scheduled commencement time for the hearing, and no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND RULES
7The relevant legislation and rule of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), which apply to appeals under the NEPDA in this situation, are:
Rule 3.3
…The Tribunal will not commence an electronic hearing event for a period of 15 minutes after it is scheduled to begin should a party of record or that party’s representative not be linked to the proceeding.
The Tribunal may start the hearing event after waiting for the requisite time period for that format of the hearing.
25 (10.2) If the persons who appealed the decision withdraw their appeals or fail to appear at the hearing, the decision of the delegate shall be deemed confirmed.
DECISION
8Given that no one appeared at the hearing, on behalf of the Appellant, within 15 minutes of the scheduled time and given the fact that the Appellant did not file any material with the Tribunal, the Hearing Officers find that the Appellant has failed to appear at the hearing and thus, section 25(10.2) of Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”) applies.
9The Hearing Officers find that the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve the Applicant’s Development Permit Application No. H/S/2021-2022/469 pursuant to s. 25(10.2) of NEPDA is deemed to be confirmed.
“G.A. Croser”
G.A. CROSER
HEARING OFFICER
“Warren Morris”
WARREN MORRIS
HEARING OFFICER
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.