Environmental Law - ONSCDC

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeals against the City's official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the redevelopment of a hospital site.

The moving party opposed the demolition of the old hospital building, raising environmental, affordable housing, and heritage preservation concerns.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any of the raised issues.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board decisions regarding a quarry site plan amendment and a substantial costs award.

The moving parties alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and various evidentiary errors by the Board member.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal on the merits and bias issues, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decisions.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of whether the Board erred in law by awarding a $60,000 premium in its costs order, noting that the Board's rules focus on misconduct rather than the result achieved or risks assumed by counsel.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Energy Board granting leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to the proposed Greenfield Energy Centre.

The appellants argued the Board erred by limiting its public interest consideration to the pipeline itself, rather than considering the environmental and socio-economic effects of the generating station and the resulting closure of a coal-fired plant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly limited its jurisdiction to the specific project before it and correctly deferred to the Ministry of the Environment on the assessment of the plant.

The applicants sought judicial review and an order of mandamus to compel the Minister of Natural Resources to require public consultation and amendments to Forest Management Plans before two forestry companies could restructure their operations, close certain sawmills, and redirect wood supply.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Plans regulate forest operations and sustainability, not the processing of harvested wood at specific mills.

As the restructuring did not change the forest operations or impact sustainability, no Plan amendments or public consultations were required under the Crown Forest Sustainability Act.

The appellant was ordered by the Ministry of the Environment to remove hundreds of thousands of used tires from its property.

The appellant hired the respondent to perform the cleanup.

After allegedly being paid only a fraction of what it was owed, the respondent registered a construction lien against the property.

The appellant moved to discharge the lien, arguing the work was not an 'improvement' under the Construction Lien Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the removal of contaminated tires constituted an alteration and repair to the land.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the removal of the tires was an improvement.

The Director appealed an order of the Environmental Review Tribunal awarding costs to the respondents after the Director revoked the underlying environmental orders.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The Environmental Protection Act does not confer costs jurisdiction, and the Tribunal could not rely on section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted rules regarding costs that complied with the requirements of section 17.1(2)(b).

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Toronto's decision to proceed with the construction of a dedicated streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West, arguing it contravened the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court released a short endorsement granting the application and setting aside the City's decision to proceed with the project, with formal reasons to follow.

The court noted the urgency of the matter to avoid wasted construction costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their lands under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Board had concluded that a bed and breakfast could only be established in an existing dwelling.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's restrictive interpretation of the Conservation Plan was open to serious debate and that the point of law warranted appellate attention given the legislation's broad impact.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal that revoked remedial orders against a former corporate officer (Lee) and an innocent current property owner (Montague) regarding historical contamination.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal regarding Lee, finding the Tribunal erred in law by applying too narrow a test for 'management or control' and failing to consider his liability for waste removal.

The appeal regarding Montague was dismissed, as the Tribunal correctly found she did not cause or permit the discharge and properly exercised its discretion on fairness grounds to relieve her of financial responsibility for the cleanup.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a City Council decision granting site plan approval for a condominium development on environmentally sensitive lands near the Thames River.

The applicant attempted to introduce fresh affidavit evidence from experts and herself.

The court admitted portions of the expert evidence commenting on the revised site plan but rejected the applicant's affidavit.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the City Council's decision was not patently unreasonable because the developer's environmental undertakings to the Ontario Municipal Board would be enforced by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an application brought by the applicant landowner on short notice.

The parties agreed to the adjournment, but the applicant sought terms to prevent the inclusion of its lands in the Greenbelt area pending the hearing.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured allowing the planning process to proceed.

The court also noted that section 14 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act prevents the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

The motion for adjournment was granted without terms.

The defendant Ministry of the Environment brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its Rule 21 motion.

The underlying action involved a corporate plaintiff alleging that the Ministry's investigation, press releases, and threats of core drilling violated its rights under sections 7, 8, and 11 of the Charter, despite no charges being laid.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions regarding whether a corporation could assert these Charter rights in the absence of penal proceedings, and that the issues raised were of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from the refusal to certify a class action, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff argued for a no-costs or reduced-costs order based on impecuniosity, but the court noted the plaintiff was funded by an environmental organization.

The court found the defendant's bill of costs reasonable given the massive size of the potential claim ($750 million) and fixed costs at $60,149.08 payable forthwith.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding against Inco Limited and others for environmental contamination in Port Colborne, as well as the subsequent costs order.

On appeal, the appellant narrowed the claims to real property devaluation, abandoning health impairment claims.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the proposed class definition was arbitrary, individual issues would overwhelm common issues, and a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court also upheld the costs award of $184,332.14 against the appellant, finding no error in the motion judge's application of costs principles under the Class Proceedings Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Realty Corporation relating to the sale of a former psychiatric hospital cemetery to a private purchaser who intended to build a crematorium.

The applicant argued that the MOE Director erred in issuing an air approval without considering fine particulate emissions and that the ORC failed to conduct a proper environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's decision was not patently unreasonable given the lack of existing standards for fine particulates at the time, and that the ORC reasonably applied its Class Environmental Assessment, which did not require assessing the private purchaser's subsequent planning actions.

The City of Ottawa appealed a decision dismissing its appeal of the Chief Building Official's issuance of a building permit for a proposed intensive hog farm operation.

The Intervenor cross-appealed the application judge's finding that it did not have a legal non-conforming use to operate the hog farm.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

The Court held that the environmental statutes (OWRA, Fisheries Act, EPA) were not 'other applicable law' under s. 8(2) of the Building Code Act because they lacked a real and logical nexus to the construction and demolition of buildings.

Furthermore, the Court upheld the application judge's finding that the proposed hog farm was a change in use from the pre-existing dairy farm, meaning the Intervenor did not have a legal non-conforming use right under the Planning Act.

The applicant, Earthroots Coalition, sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resources' decision to permit the improvement and use of a logging road crossing the Bob Lake Conservation Reserve.

The applicant argued the road use violated the Conservation Reserve Regulation, which prohibits commercial forest harvest and industrial uses in the reserve.

Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court dismissed the application.

The court held that the regulation must be interpreted purposively within the broader legislative framework of the Public Lands Act and the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, making the Minister's decision to balance conservation with forest management objectives reasonable.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that the respondents fell within the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and were entitled to a hearing on their appeals regarding aggregate resource uses.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the newly enacted legislation raised a point of law of sufficient public importance and that there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

The applicants, members of the Grassy Meadows First Nation, brought an application for judicial review challenging the Minister of Natural Resources' authority to approve forest licences and management plans that allegedly infringed their Treaty 3 hunting and fishing rights.

The Minister and the licensee, Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., brought motions to quash the application.

The Divisional Court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an application for judicial review.

The court quashed the application on the basis that much of the relief sought, which involved constitutional challenges and declarations against a private company, fell outside the court's judicial review jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the application because the complex factual and constitutional issues, including aboriginal treaty rights, required a full trial rather than a summary application.

The application was quashed with leave to commence an action.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a proposed landfill expansion.

The core issue was the interpretation of section 6.1(3) of the Environmental Assessment Act, specifically whether the phrase 'other than' meant 'in addition to' or 'different from' the standard requirements.

The Divisional Court held that 'other than' means 'in addition to', requiring the proponent to fulfill the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements listed in section 6.1(2).

The Minister's decision approving the Terms of Reference was quashed.