Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001102
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: Ssonix Products 2010 Inc.
Appellant: Steve Baker
Appellant: Tyler Baker
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Order for costs and expenses concerning the cleanup of a spill
Reference No.: 1-2G7QBK
Property Address/Description: 20 Keefer Road
Municipality/Upper Tier: St. Catharines/Niagara
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001102
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001102
OLT Case Name: Ssonix Products 2010 Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
HEARD: January 15, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Ssonix Products 2010 Inc., Steve Baker, and Tyler Baker | Jessica Boily |
| Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks | Sarah Valair and Hannah-Mariah West (articling student) |
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1On November 7, 2024, Ssonix Products 2010 Inc. (“Ssonix”), Steve Baker, and Tyler Baker (together “Appellants”) filed an appeal under s. 140(1) of the Environmental Protection Act regarding a Cost Recovery Order, dated October 25, 2024 (“Director’s Order”), issued against them by the Director (“Director”), Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) under s. 99.1 of the Act.
2Ssonix had approval from the MECP to operate a hazardous waste processing facility under Environmental Compliance Approval No. A120135 (“Environmental Compliance Approval”) at 20 Keefer Road (“site”) in the City of St. Catharines (“City”). Pursuant to the Environmental Compliance Approval, Ssonix housed hazardous waste products on the site. They were located both inside buildings and in containers outside. Steve Baker and Tyler Baker are directors of Ssonix.
3On January 12, 2023, an explosion and fire occurred at the site. On September 11, 2023, the City issued a cost recovery order (“Municipal Order”) under s. 100.1 of the Environmental Protection Act for the City’s costs that were incurred in response to the explosion and fire. The Municipal Order was appealed by the owners of the site and is now the subject matter of a separate proceeding in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000949.
4On December 11, 2024, the City sent correspondence to the Tribunal requesting Party status in the present proceeding.
5On January 3, 2025, the Appellants notified the Tribunal that the Parties had agreed to a proposed settlement and requested that the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this proceeding, which had been scheduled for January 15, 2025, be converted into a settlement hearing.
6In response, the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing alongside the CMC for January 15, 2025.
7This Decision addresses both the City’s request for status and the proposed settlement, both of which were heard on January 15, 2025, by video hearing.
Request for Party Status
Submissions
8As noted above, the City requested Party status. It submitted that there are similarities between the proceeding in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000949 and the present proceeding. It submitted that the language in s. 99.1 and 100.1 of the [Environmental Protection Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/