Rice Lake Developments Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
ISSUE DATE: September 06, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000709
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 19, as amended
Appellant: Rakesh, Rajni and Mohit Gupta and Rice Lake Developments Inc. (File No. 010614)
Appellants: Donna Avery and Gregory Hayes (File No. 010618)
Appellant: Dawson Massey (File No. 010627)
Appellants: Ronald and Lisa Lisqum (File No. 010663)
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Order to retain a qualified person to conduct an environmental site assessment which will assess and delineate the contaminants of concern in soil and groundwater which originate at and from the site
Reference No.: 1-20755483
Property Address/Description: 1376 County Road 2
Municipality: Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands
Upper Tier: Counties of Leeds and Grenville
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000709
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000709
OLT Case Name: Rice Lake Developments Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: August 19, 2024 by Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”)
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) | A. Landre |
| Ronald Lisqum and Lisa Lisqum | D.K. Gibson |
| Donna Avery, Gregory Hayes | LeeAnn Irwin* |
| Dawson Massey | Self-Represented*, M. Mannarino (in absentia) |
| Rakesh Gupta, Mohit Gupta, Rajni Gupta, Rice Lake Developments Inc. | Rakesh Gupta* |
DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision arises from a status conference held on August 19, 2024 by TCC in relation to appeals separately filed by the persons/entities described above (“Appeals”) with respect to the MECP Director’s Order dated June 28, 2024 (“Director’s Order”).
2The Director’s Order relates to the property located at 1376 County Road 2, in the Township of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands (“Site”) and alleges that all Appellant Parties must take certain steps to address allegedly contaminated soils etc. present at the Site.
3The TCC did not deal with any substantive or procedural issues concerning the Appeals and comprised solely of a general discussion concerning the desire of the Appellant Parties to have the Tribunal consider ordering a stay of the Director’s Order until the completion of the hearing of the Appeals.
4No party, including the MECP, filed any materials or submissions in advance of the TCC concerning whether the Director’s Order ought to be stayed.
DISCUSSION OF INTERIM STAY OR FINAL STAY
5It was evident at the TCC that none of the Parties had given much thought to the basis for a granting of a stay by the Tribunal. However, the Appellant Parties all sought at least an interim stay to cover the period until a motion could be briefed and argued before the Tribunal.
6Counsel for the MECP initially submitted that the most important deadline in the Director’s Order was March 31, 2025 being as follows:
Item No. 6 Compliance Due Date: Mar-31-2025
By March 31, 2025, submit to the Director by email to cathy.chisholm@ontario.ca and to environment.kingston@ontario.ca, a written report, prepared by the retained Qualified Person(s) in accordance with Table 1 entitled 'Mandatory Requirements for Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Reports' in Schedule E of O. Reg. 153/04 which describes the steps taken to implement the accepted Delineation Work Plan and summarizes the findings on the implementation of the accepted Delineation Work Plan.
7Later during the TCC, counsel for the MECP then argued that no stay is necessary or warranted in the circumstances, even until the date of the stay motion hearing event. On the other hand, in reply to a request from several Appellant Parties, the MECP’s counsel indicated that she would discuss their request with her client.
8The Appellant Parties noted that the costs of complying with the Director’s Order were unaffordable and seemed unfair in the circumstances, particularly since all appellants stated that they are of modest means and because only Donna Avery and Gregory Hayes are in current possession and occupation of the Site. For their part, Ms. Avery and Mr. Hayes noted that they have already spent thousands of dollars in responding to the Director’s Order and are not in a position to continue to do so. All Appellant Parties present at the TCC also contended that they did not contribute in any way to the alleged contamination that is the subject matter of the Director’s Order.
9The Tribunal determined that a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) is clearly needed in this proceeding and that a CMC date could also serve as a return date for any stay motion that the Appellant Parties wish to initiate. The Tribunal reminded all Parties to carefully review Rule 19 and Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in this regard. However, subsequent to the TCC, counsel for the Director further communicated her instructions from the Director which now make it unnecessary to hold a CMC at this time.
10Counsel for the Director has now consented to an interim stay of the Director’s Order items 1 through 9 on the condition that the Friday, September 27, 2024 CMC/stay motion event be adjourned for at least two months, during which time the interim stay would remain in effect. During this period, the Director will then have time to consider whether it might consider a full stay of proceedings until the final hearing of all appeals is completed in this proceeding.
11Subsequent to the communication from counsel for the Director, as described in paragraph [10] above, all Parties have consented to the interim stay on that basis. Thus, it is unnecessary to schedule a CMC or motion for stay hearing date at this juncture.
12In these unusual circumstances, the Tribunal also agrees with the course of action proposed by counsel for the Director.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
(a) the Director’s Order at issue in these appeals, items 1 through 9 inclusive, shall be stayed on an interim basis;
(b) the Director shall notify all Parties and the Tribunal by Friday, November 29, 2024 as to whether it is prepared to consent to a further stay of the Director’s Order as described in item (a) above pending the hearing of the appeals in this proceeding;
(c) following the notification from the Director as described in item (b) above, in the event that the Director is prepared to consent to a further stay of the proceedings until the hearing of the appeals, the Tribunal shall schedule a further CMC, if and as necessary, to schedule a hearing date for the adjudication of the appeals;
(d) in the event that the Director advises by its notification as described in item (b) that it is not prepared to consent to a further stay of the proceedings until the hearing of the appeals, the Tribunal shall schedule a further CMC, if and as necessary, to schedule a hearing date for a motion by the Appellants for a continued stay of proceedings (“Motion Date”). In that event, the interim stay described in item (a) above shall remain in effect until the Motion Date.
14This Vice-Chair shall remain seized of this matter for all events save and except for the final hearing of the appeals in this proceeding.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
VICE-CHAIR
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.