Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 11, 2026

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: April 27, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Denison Mines	Lana Finney, Leah Kelly
Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks	Amanda Landre, Isabelle O’Conner

Memorandum of oral DECISION DELIVERED BY George Politis ON APRIL 27, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held relating to the Appeal filed by Denison Mines Inc.(“Appellant”) regarding conditions imposed on an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval No. 9801-DGZTNK, dated September 22, 2025. (“Amended Approval”). The Amended Approval relates to the decommissioned uranium mine on the property located at 1000 Cider Lake Road, Elliot Lake City, District of Algoma.

2During the first CMC, the Parties requested the Tribunal to adjourn the CMC to facilitate settlement discussions.

3During this CMC, the Tribunal was informed by both Parties that a settlement was not reached and to proceed with scheduling a Hearing of the Merits.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

4During the proceedings, the Parties discussed and finalized the draft Procedural Order dates and the Issues List. The Tribunal was advised that, given the expected number of witnesses to testify, eight days would be required for the Merit Hearing. The final draft Procedural Order is in APPENDIX “A” of this decision

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

5During discussions pertaining to the Order of Evidence, the Appellant raised concerns that not being first to provide evidence would prejudice their client. The Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) claimed that it had the right to go first due to its Regulatory status. In fairness, the Tribunal requested the Parties to send their submissions to the case coordinator for the Tribunal to review and decide who will go first.

6To determine whether the Director of the MECP or the Appellant will be first to provide evidence, the Tribunal will rely on Rule 1.6 and 22.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

1.6 Tribunal May Exempt from Rules The Tribunal may grant all necessary exceptions from these Rules or from any procedural order, or grant other relief as it considers necessary and appropriate, to ensure that the real questions in issue are determined in a fair, just expeditious and cost-effective manner.

22.3 Procedure at a Hearing The Tribunal may, by order, establish and direct the procedure at a hearing event, unless an Act provides differently, in order to ensure the issues in dispute are disposed of in the most fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.

7The Tribunal reviewed the submissions from both Parties. The arguments from the Appellant claimed that it is appropriate for them to present its evidence first, to provide relevant context regarding to the history, regulation, oversight, monitoring, and reporting associated with the decommissioned uranium mine at 1000 Cinder Lake Road since the 1990s.

8In their submissions, the Director of the MECP quotes from the Hearing Guide, stating that:

In some instances, the decision-maker whose decision is being appealed (i.e., the Director, Risk Management Official, Inspector, Registrar or Deputy Registrar, municipality, approval authority, committee of adjustment) will present their case first and call each of their witnesses. In other cases, the OLT may wish to hear from the appellant or applicant first because it is more efficient to focus on the disputed issues.

9The Director’s position is that by presenting first, it would assist the Tribunal to hear from the MECP’s witnesses to explain the applicable regulatory framework and the rationale for the appealed conditions in the Amended Approval.

10After thorough review of the submissions from both Parties regarding procedural fairness, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the Appellant’s arguments regarding the importance of the uranium mine’s history. The Tribunal does not agree with any prejudice claimed by the Appellant, as result from being second to provide evidence following the Director of the MECP.

11Having regard to Rule 1.6 and 22.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal finds that the Director of the MECP’s submissions are necessary and appropriate to ensure the matters in issue are determined fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

12The Tribunal prefers the Director of the MECP’s submissions concerning the relevance of the Amended Approval’s regulatory context to the appeal, as they provide essential explanation of the regulatory framework and the rationale for the Amended Approval’s conditions under appeal and, therefore, shall be first to provide evidence at the Hearing of the Merits.

13The Tribunal scheduled a Merit Hearing to proceed by video on Monday, November 23, 2026 at 10 a.m., continuing until Wednesday, December 2, 2026. Eight days have been set aside for the Hearing.

14Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365

Access code: 709-076-365

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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 709-076-365.

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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

18As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a Party, Participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

MEDIATION

19The Tribunal highlighted the availability of Tribunal-led mediation and advised the Parties to consider should they wish to pursue this option.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a) At the Hearing on the Merits, the Order of Evidence shall begin with the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks presenting first.

b) A Hearing will commence by Video Hearing on Monday, November 23, 2026 at 10 a.m., continuing until Wednesday, December 2, 2026.

21There will be no further Notice.

22This Member is not seized.

“George Politis”

GEORGE POLITIS

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.

APPEDNIX “A”

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)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on November 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 8 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

9. A party, participant, or witness who intends to submit document(s) to the Tribunal must include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content. A declaration is not required if AI was used to merely suggest changes, provide recommendations, or critique content already created by a human who then considered and manually implemented the changes.

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before August 17, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before September 4 2026 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 18, 2026.

[23]

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before October 9, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. On or before November 5, 2026, parties shall provide copies of their reply witness and expert witness statements (if any) to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before October 16, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before November 9, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 9, 2026.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before November 13, 2026 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

____________________________

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1 – PARTIES TO THE APPEAL

Denison Mines Inc.

Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Suite 4000, 199 Bay St

Toronto, Ontario M5L 1A9

Lana Finney

Counsel

Tel: 416-863-2228

Email: lana.finney@blakes.com

Leah Kelley

Counsel

Tel: 416-863-2554

Email: leah.kelley@blakes.com

Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks

Ministry of the Environment Legal Services Branch

135 St. Clair Ave West 10th Floor

Toronto ON M4V 1P5

Amanda Landre

Counsel

Tel: 437-774-3647

Email: amanda.landre@ontario.ca

Isabelle O’Connor

Counsel

Tel: 416-705-5097

Email: isabelle.oconnor@ontario.ca

ATTACHMENT 2 - ISSUES LIST

1. Should Conditions 5.2 and 5.3 and Schedule C be altered to remove the requirement to monitor silver and selenium?

2. Should Condition 5.2 be altered to remove the requirement of chronic toxicity testing of Fathead Minnow in effluent?

3. Should Condition 5.4, which requires seepage from dam 9, dam 16 and/or dam 17 to be collected and redirected to Tailings Management Area 1 for treatment where the quality of the seepage from that dam exceeds background or specific water quality guidelines, be revoked or amended?

ATTACHMENT 3 -ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Opening Statements

1. Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks- Evidence in chief, cross-examination and re-exam

2. Appellant, Denison Mines Inc.- Evidence in chief, cross-examination and re-exam

3. Reply- Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (if required)

4. Closing Statements