Environmental Defence v. Ontario (Min. Environment), 2020 ONSC 4127

CITATION: Environmental Defence v. Ontario (Min. Environment), 2020 ONSC 4127

DIV COURT FILE NO.: TBA

DATE: 2020-07-03

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO

RE: Environmental Defence v. Ontario (Min. Environment)

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Julia Croome and Sue Tan, for the potential applicants Messrs. Wayland and McKinley, for Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario Jonathan Lisus and Connie Chen, for Sauble Beach

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference on June 26, 2020.

[2] The Town of Sauble Beach has sought a permit from the Minister of the Environment to carry out certain works on Sauble Beach. The applicants are concerned that the proposed works would destroy sensitive breeding grounds for a protected animal, a species of plover. Plover nesting on Sauble Beach has been a matter of public issue for several years, at least.

[3] The applicants intend to seek judicial review of any permit issued by the Minister that, in their opinion, would disrupt plover habitat. They are concerned, however, that the Town of Sauble Beach could move without delay and destroy sensitive plover habitat before the applicants can commence an application and move for an urgent stay order in this court. The applicants advised that they believed that the permit could be issued as early as June 26th.

[4] Mr Lisus, who had almost no notice of the teleconference call, noted that his client is a public authority and should not be assumed to be likely to take a path to frustrate the court’s ability to do justice. On the other hand, he also reported that conditions on the beach are considered, by some, to pose a public health hazard, and to require prompt response once his client is in a position to act. Mr Lisus could not give an undertaking on behalf of his client, not having had a chance to obtain instructions in this regard.

[5] Counsel for Ontario could not assist on the likely timeline for release of the Minister’s decision on the permit request, and could not promise that advance notice of release of the decision would be provided.

[6] The court expects the parties to behave reasonably. The court will expedite the case, including any stay motion, and it expects that the parties will not act to impede the court’s ability to adjudicate the case on the merits following a fair and timely process. The parties are encouraged to try to sort out terms among themselves, both in respect to a potential stay and for expeditious return of any application that may be brought.

[7] Of course, the parties may not agree on terms for a stay. If that turns out to be the case, then the court will expedite a stay motion, and the parties are encouraged to agree on a schedule for prompt exchange of materials for that motion. If the parties cannot agree on interim terms, pending an expedited stay motion, then any party may arrange an emergency case management conference with me to speak to that issue.

[8] It would be best if arrangements for a further case management conference are made through Divisional Court staff. If something should arise that requires the court’s assistance so urgently that arrangements cannot be made through Divisional Court staff, counsel have been provided with my direct contact information. It is expected that counsel will not have recourse to this direct contact information unless truly necessary.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: July 3, 2020