Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000760
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 139(1)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, as amended
Appellant: Denison Mines Inc.
Respondent: Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Subject of appeal: Conditions imposed on an application to upgrade the existing sewage works for the collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal of water overflow, including precipitation, stormwater runoff, and snowmelt, from the Tailings Management Area No. 1 Basin, located at the closed and decommissioned uranium mine site
Reference No.: 9801-DGZTNK
Property Address/Description: 1000 Cinder Lake Road
Municipality: Elliot Lake City
Upper Tier: District of Algoma
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000760
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000760
OLT Case Name: Denison Mines Inc. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
Heard: December 1, 2025 by telephone conference call
Parties
Counsel
Denison Mines Inc.
Lana Finney Leah Kelley
Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Amanda Landre Madeline Ritchie
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This Decision addresses the appeal brought by Denison Mines Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding conditions in Amended Environmental Compliance Approval No. 9801-DGZTNK, dated September 22, 2025 (“Amended Approval”). The Amended Approval addresses the decommissioning of a former uranium mine on the property located at 1000 Cinder Lake Road (“subject property”) in Elliot Lake.
2On December 1, 2025, the Tribunal convened a status update telephone call for the purpose of scheduling a hearing date for a stay motion, which was being contemplated by the Appellant.
3At the commencement of the status update telephone call, the Parties informed the Tribunal that they had reached a proposed resolution to the request for a stay and indicated a willingness to set a date for a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this proceeding.
SUBMISSIONS
4The Parties submit that they have agreed to a stay of Condition 5.4 in its entirety pending the final outcome of the proceeding. Condition 5.4 states:
If the quality of seepage from any of dam 9, dam 16 or dam 17 exceeds background (measured at D-4, at the outfall of Dunlop Lake) or applicable water quality guideline values (i.e., the most recently published of the Ontario Provincial Water Quality Objectives, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines or Federal Water Quality Guidelines; for sulphate the British Columbia Ambient Water Quality Guideline and for radium-226 the Saskatchewan Environmental Quality Guideline for surface water), the contaminated seepage shall be collected and redirected to the TMA-1 for treatment.
5The Parties submit that the proposed resolution to the request for a stay is subject to two conditions. The conditions are that:
- the Appellant will collect and analyze seepage grab samples monthly at dams 9, 16, and 17 in accordance with all other terms and conditions of ECA No. 9801-DGZTNK, except during months where the seepage is frozen, and therefore unable to be collected, or a field-level risk assessment indicates that it would not be safe to access the seepage collection point(s); and
- the Appellant will report the results of the seepage sampling set out in term (1), including all required parameters and flow, to Ministry Environmental Compliance Officer Lori Jalak within 7 days of the receipt of the analysis results from the lab. In months where seepage samples are not collected, the Appellant will report the reason for not collecting a sample and provide justification and/or available documentation to support the decision, such as notes or photos, to Officer Jalak by the end of that month.
6The Director submits that there are no statutory bars to the proposed resolution to the Appellant’s request for a stay and that the tests for ordering a stay have been satisfied. The Director submits that monitoring, recording and reporting at the subject property has been ongoing and will continue. The Director submits that there are technical and financial challenges to implementing Condition 5.4 and compliance with it may be difficult to achieve. The Director submits that monitoring will continue regardless of whether a stay is granted and that any impacts arising from the proposed stay would not be immediate. The Director submits that if impacts or concerns arise, the Director will seek the removal of the stay. The Director reiterates that the proposed stay will not have any immediate adverse impacts and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the proposed stay. The Director submits that the granting of the stay supports the protection of the environment and aligns with the purpose and intent of the Environmental Protection Act.
7The Appellant submits that it would suffer irreparable harm if the proposed stay were not granted. It argues that the work required to comply with Condition 5.4 is significant and the cost of compliance would be excessive and unrecoverable. It submits that the enforcement of Condition 5.4 would impact the Appellant‘s reputation and hinder its ability to secure future licences. It submits that, as a public company, the absence of a stay would cause irreparable impacts on its relationship with shareholders and the public.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8In determining whether to grant a motion for a stay, the Tribunal must consider:
- whether the applicable statutory tests for the granting of a stay are met;
- whether there is a serious issue to be decided by the Tribunal;
- whether irreparable harm will ensue if the relief is not granted; and
- whether the balance of convenience, including effects on the public interest, favours granting the relief requested.
9With respect to the relevant statutory tests that are applicable to the granting a stay under the Environmental Protection Act, s. 143(2) and (3) of the Act states:
143(2) The Tribunal may, on the application of a party to a proceeding before it, stay the operation of a decision or order, other than,
(a) an order to monitor, record and report; or
(b) an order issued under section 168.8, 168.14 or 168.20.
(3) The Tribunal shall not stay the operation of a decision or order if doing so would result in,
(a) danger to the health or safety of any person;
(b) impairment or serious risk of impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it; or
(c) injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property or to any plant or animal life.
10Based on the submissions of the Parties, monitoring, recording, and reporting will be improved as a result of the conditions for the stay. The Parties also submitted that the proposed stay would not have adverse impacts. Based on this, the Tribunal finds that the proposed stay will not hinder monitoring, recording, or reporting; will not result in danger to human health or safety; will not impair or cause a serious risk of impairment to the environment; and will not result in injury or damage or serious risk of injury or damage to any property or to any plant or animal life.
11The Tribunal finds that the proposed stay is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Environmental Protection Act, which are to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment, and that there are no statutory bars to the granting of the proposed stay.
12The Parties demonstrated that the issues before the Tribunal are serious and that the Appellant would incur unrecoverable costs and harm to its reputation and ability to secure future licencing if the proposed stay was not granted. They also demonstrated that, in the present circumstances, it is in the public interest to grant the proposed stay. The Tribunal finds that, based on the submissions from the Parties, there is a serious issue to be tried, the Appellant would suffer irreparable harm if the proposed stay were not granted, and the balance of convenience favours the granting of the proposed stay.
13The Tribunal finds that the Parties have satisfied the tests for a stay.
CMC SCHEDULING
14During the status update call, the Parties discussed the scheduling of the first CMC in this proceeding. The Tribunal scheduled the CMC for Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 10 a.m. to proceed by video hearing.
15Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access code: 687-587-165
16Parties 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.
17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free +1-888-299-1889. The access code is 687-587-165.
18Individuals 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 Video Hearing 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.
19The Tribunal requests that the Parties file with the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator a draft Procedural Order and Issues List by no later than Monday, January 12, 2026.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the request for a stay of Condition 5.4 of the Director’s Order until the date of the disposition of the appeal is granted subject to the following conditions:
- The Appellant will collect and analyze seepage grab samples monthly at dams 9, 16, and 17 in accordance with all other terms and conditions of ECA No. 9801-DGZTNK, except during months where the seepage is frozen, and therefore unable to be collected, or a field-level risk assessment indicates that it would not be safe to access the seepage collection point(s).
- The Appellant will report the results of the seepage sampling set out in term (1), including all required parameters and flow, to Ministry Environmental Compliance Officer Lori Jalak within 7 days of the receipt of the analysis results from the lab. In months where seepage samples are not collected, the Appellant will report the reason for not collecting a sample and provide justification and/or available documentation to support the decision, such as notes or photos, to Officer Jalak by the end of that month.
“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.