Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000641
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Order to retain and have a Qualified Person engineer reinstall the main process building biofilter, submit a plan to assess the sources of air emissions and prepare a complete inventory of all potential sources of contaminants that discharge to air
Reference No.: 1-315703083
Property Address/Description: 17141 Rombough Road
Municipality: Township of North Stormont
Upper Tier: United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000641
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000641
OLT Case Name: Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: October 6, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd.
Hayley Crawhall-Duk
Emma Berthiaume (articling student)
Director, Ministry of the
Shane Sukerman
Environment, Conservation and Parks
Liam McDermott (articling student)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON OCTOBER 6, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1On October 6, 2025, the Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this proceeding. The proceeding arises from an appeal brought by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. (“Appellant”) under s. 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) regarding the issuance of a Director’s Order No. 1-35703083 (“Director’s Order”) by the Director (“Director”), Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) regarding the Appellant’s operations at 17141 Rombough Road (“subject property”), Monkland, in the Township of North Stormont.
2At the CMC, the Tribunal heard a motion to dismiss brought by the Director. The Tribunal then addressed a request for Participant status, the identification of the issues to be adjudicated at a hearing, opportunities for settlement discussions, and the scheduling of a further CMC.
Director’s Motion to Dismiss
3The Director filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the Appellant had failed to respond to a request by the Tribunal on December 2, 2024, for further information. The Director submits that Rule 15.4(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) states that if a party that brought a proceeding has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal, then the Tribunal may dismiss the proceeding without a hearing. The Director argues that on December 2, 2024, the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator emailed the Appellant requesting confirmation on whether it had retained counsel and whether it intended to pursue its earlier request for a stay of the Director’s Order. Although the Director acknowledges that the Appellant informed the Tribunal in September 2024 that it would not be retaining counsel, the Director argues that the Appellant never properly responded to the Tribunal, including regarding whether it intended to pursue its request for a stay.
4The Director argues that the Appellant has taken no steps in the proceeding since September 2024, which has prejudiced the Director. It submits that the Appellant has demonstrated a lack of regard for the Tribunal’s Rules and has not carried out its responsibilities. The Director submits that as work items in the Director’s Order remain outstanding, the Appellant has benefited from the delay and that, on this basis, it is not in the public interest for the appeal to proceed. The Director submits that the proceeding should be treated as being abandoned, and it should be dismissed.
5The Appellant submits that it emailed the Tribunal on September 18, 2024, indicating that it did not intend to retain counsel at that time. It submits that it understood that the Tribunal would be scheduling a further CMC at which issues, including the proposed stay, would be addressed. Given that it had already informed the Tribunal that it would not be retaining counsel, and its understanding that the Tribunal would be convening a CMC to address the stay issue, the Appellant states that it had assumed that the Tribunal’s December 2024 email was sent in error.
Findings
6The Tribunal does not summarily deny an Appellant its appeal rights. In the present circumstances, the Appellant’s misunderstanding about the need to respond to the Tribunal regarding whether it intended to pursue its request for a stay does reach the level of unreasonable conduct that would warrant the dismissal of the appeal. To do so would raise access to justice concerns and would neither be fair nor equitable. In order to ensure a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective process, the Tribunal found that the Parties should be focusing on getting prepared for the hearing and discussing ways to narrow or settle the issues.
7On this basis, the Tribunal denied the Director’s motion to dismiss.
Request for Participant Status
8Paul Rodrigue requested Participant status. He lives in the vicinity of the subject property and is concerned about odour emissions. The Director took no position on Mr. Rodrigue’s request for status. However, the Appellant had concerns. It submits that odour issues have been significantly addressed and may no longer be a problem. It opposed the granting of status to Mr. Rodrigue. The Tribunal notes the proximity of Mr. Rodrigue’s home to the subject property and his longstanding concerns regarding odours emitted from the Appellant’s facility. The Tribunal found that he has an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and it granted Participant status to Mr. Rodrigue, as requested.
Identification of Issues and Settlement Opportunities
9During a break in the CMC, the Parties consulted regarding the identification of issues, but were unable to come to an agreement on a final issues list. The Tribunal suggested to the Parties that their experts have a meeting to discuss and identify the outstanding work items and that counsel work together to identify, narrow, and hopefully resolve the outstanding issues. The Tribunal strongly encouraged the Parties to work cooperatively in an effort to come to a resolution of the issues and a settlement of the appeal. It suggested to the Parties that Tribunal assisted mediation may be a useful option moving forward.
10The Parties agreed to organize an experts’ meeting and agreed to have counsel discuss the narrowing and resolution of the issues. They both expressed an openness to engaging in mediation.
11Regarding whether the Appellant intends to pursue its request for a stay, it submitted that this can best be determined after the experts have met and the outstanding issues are identified. It suggested that this issue be discussed again at the next CMC.
Scheduling of a Further CMC
12The Parties agreed to the scheduling of a further CMC for late November at which the Parties will update the Tribunal on the status of settlement discussions, discuss the finalization of an Issues List and a draft Procedural Order, and discuss whether a stay motion is necessary.
13The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for Thursday, November 20, 2025, commencing at 10 a.m. to be held by video hearing.
14The Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the hearing by video at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/909787981;
Access Code: 909-787-981
15Parties and/or Participants 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: 647-497-9391 or Toll Free 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 909-787-981
17Individuals 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.
18The Tribunal requested that the Parties file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List with the Tribunal by no later than Wednesday, November 19, 2025.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Director’s motion to dismiss is denied.
20THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT:
Paul Rodrigue is a Participant in this proceeding;
A further second CMC is scheduled as set out above;
There will be no further notice; and
This Member is not seized.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
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.