Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 27, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000428
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: P & R Contracting Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of Appeal: Order to remove the excavator from the property and to perform work to prevent, manage and remediate any spills or contaminant impacts to the environment when removing the excavator
Reference No.: 1-308664615
Property Address/Description: A flood plain of a tributary of McKellar Creek, west of Deadhorse Road in the Nipigon-Geraldton District (Crown land)
Municipality/Upper Tier: Thunder Bay District
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000428
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000428
OLT Case Name: P & R Contracting Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: May 17, 2024 by Teleconference
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| P & R Contracting Inc. ("Appellant") | Rene Larson |
| Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks ("Director") | Nadine Harris |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON MAY 17, 2024
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant has appealed the Director’s Order No. 1-308664615 pursuant to section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O 1990, c. E.19.
2It is alleged that the Appellant had rented out an excavator to Fred Paatz, who abandoned it semi-submerged on a flood plain of a tributary of McKellar Creek, west of Deadhorse Road in the Nipigon-Geraldton District. There appears to be a disagreement between the Appellant and the renter of the equipment over who, as between them, had the responsibility to remove the excavator. The Director concluded that the equipment continued to pose a risk of further discharge of contaminants into the natural environment. The Director’s Order was directed jointly to both the Appellant, as the owner of the excavator, and to Mr. Paatz, as the renter who had management and control of it.
3Upon filing its Appeal, the Appellant indicated that it would be seeking a stay of the Director’s Order. The Notice of the Appellant’s Motion for a Stay was sent administratively by the Tribunal on May 8, 2024.
4This Case Management Conference (“CMC”), held by way of Teleconference, was organized to inquire into, amongst other things, whether the Appellant was also seeking an interim stay, when the stay request or requests could be heard, and the content and form of the Motion material.
5Given that Mr. Paatz did not appeal the Director’s Order, only the Appellant and the Director are Parties to this proceeding.
NEXT STEPS
6Counsel for the Parties informed the Tribunal that Mr. Paatz has now retained a contractor to extract the excavator. The Director indicated that a consent to the stay could be agreed upon by the Parties, on a without prejudice basis, so long as Mr. Paatz continues to address the issue. However, the Director wished to reserve the right in those circumstances to request that the stay be lifted if corrective actions did not continue to be implemented. Counsel for the Director submitted that the Tribunal’s oversight was required jurisdictionally even if a stay is agreed upon by the Parties.
7Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that setting a second CMC is reasonable in the circumstances to consider the stay on a consent basis. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that a second CMC be scheduled for Tuesday, June 4, 2024. The Tribunal directed the Parties to work cooperatively to file with the Tribunal, by Friday, May 31, 2024, their consent submissions with respect to the Motion to Stay which would be considered at the second CMC. Alternatively, if the Parties are unable to agree, the second CMC will consider the next steps in the proceeding, including how to address the contested Motion for a Stay, whether interim or otherwise.
8The second CMC will proceed by Video Hearing on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
9Parties are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733
Access code: 979-388-733
10Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
12Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its Directions above.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.