Patrick Gerald Duffy

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $6,156.71 following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay.

The appellant argued that as a public interest litigant, no costs should be awarded, noting it had ultimately obtained the interim remedy from the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The court agreed with the appellant and ordered no costs for the motion.

The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County brought a motion to stay a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind power project pending the disposition of its appeal.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing and site preparation would cause irreparable harm to the threatened Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Environmental Review Tribunal found that there was a serious issue to be tried, that irreparable harm would ensue to the spring foraging habitat of the Blanding's Turtle, and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving party.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part, halting vegetation clearing in identified spring foraging habitat.

The moving party, Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, sought an interim stay of physical activities associated with a renewable energy approval for a wind power project, pending the disposition of a stay motion.

The moving party argued that vegetation clearing would cause irreparable harm to Blanding's Turtle and its habitat.

The Tribunal found that while harm to active turtles was not demonstrated, there was sufficient evidence that irreparable harm to vegetation and spring foraging habitat could occur.

The balance of convenience favoured the moving party, and the interim stay was granted.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project pending the scheduling of a motion hearing for a full stay.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the interim stay, with reasons to follow, and directed that the hearing of the motion for a stay be scheduled in writing as soon as possible.

The moving party brought a motion for a stay of a renewable energy approval for a wind power generation project, seeking to halt vegetation clearing and site preparation.

The moving party argued that the proposed work would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's Turtle, a threatened species.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded that the moving party failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as its evidence was speculative and did not account for the mitigation and avoidance measures required by the approval.

The Tribunal also found that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant brought an urgent motion to stay physical work on a renewable energy project pending its appeal of an Environmental Review Tribunal order.

The Tribunal had dismissed a similar motion, with reasons to follow.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test for interlocutory injunctions and found that without the Tribunal's reasons, it could not assess whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no evidence of irreparable harm from the limited vegetation clearing proposed, and noted the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order to stay all physical activities within the proposed wind project area associated with a Renewable Energy Approval.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion for a stay, with reasons to follow.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a software licensing dispute.

The motion judge found that the respondent breached the licence agreement and infringed copyright by using the software on operating systems other than AIX, but did not breach the agreement by using it on multiple servers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the contract, finding no server restriction but confirming the AIX operating system restriction.

However, the Court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in dismissing the estoppel defence regarding the AIX restriction, and directed that the estoppel issue proceed to trial alongside the limitation defence and damages.

The appellants brought motions to stay various sections of a Director's Order requiring them to maintain environmental protection measures and assess environmental conditions at steel mill and mining operations.

The Tribunal granted the Company Directors' motion to stay section 2.9 on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Company and Company Officers' motion to stay section 2.11, but dismissed the request to stay the remaining sections.

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The Regional Municipality of Halton sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned two provisions of its Development Charges By-law.

The Board had excluded capital costs incurred by Conservation Halton and reinstated six categories of residential development instead of the four adopted by the Region.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal regarding the Conservation Halton costs, finding the Board's interpretation of s. 5(3) of the Development Charges Act was not open to serious debate.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal regarding the development categories, finding serious debate over whether the Board had the authority to impose its view of fairness and reasonableness without finding non-compliance with the Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider requests for presenter status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility in Prince Edward County.

Four individuals and organizations requested presenter status to provide evidence on birds, wildlife, ecosystems, and human health.

Finding that the requesters had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions, the Tribunal granted presenter status to all four, subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of their presentations.

The Moving Parties sought a stay or adjournment of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project, pending the outcome of their application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal determined the request was for an adjournment rather than a stay.

Applying its Rules of Practice, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not justified, as the judicial review would not necessarily resolve the issues before the Tribunal, and delaying the hearing would prejudice the appellant and not serve the public interest in timely proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The added parties brought a motion for a stay of the proceedings or an adjournment of the hearing regarding the refusal of a Renewable Energy Approval for two wind turbines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

The Approval Holder brought a motion for direction in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Director had approved 27 of the 29 proposed turbines.

The Approval Holder sought a direction that the parties submit evidence regarding the potential impacts of the full 29-turbine project, arguing it would be more efficient if they succeeded in a separate appeal to reinstate the two refused turbines.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Director's decision as issued, and declined to make advance rulings on the relevance of specific evidence.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address procedural matters and requests for status in appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

The Tribunal dismissed one appeal on consent.

It granted participant and presenter status to several individuals and a local business, limiting their presentations to issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied requests for party status from a municipality and two individuals, finding it unnecessary at this stage for procedural purposes, but allowed them to renew their requests if circumstances change.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, several entities requested party or presenter status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status to the Municipality of Prince Edward County and two individuals with cultural heritage expertise, finding they had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions.

The Tribunal denied party status to the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, as its interest was purely procedural and could be accommodated without formal party status.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario was granted presenter status.

The Tribunal also set the procedural schedule for the hearing.

The Ontario Energy Board appealed a decision that had required it to apply a mandatory prudence framework when assessing Ontario Power Generation compensation costs in rate-setting.

The majority held tribunal participation in defending its own decision was proper in this regulatory context and found no impermissible bootstrapping on appeal.

The Court held the governing statute did not require a single prudence methodology and permitted the Board to use a mixed approach for costs that were partly committed and partly subject to managerial discretion.

The Board’s disallowance of $145 million in compensation costs was found reasonable, and its original decision was reinstated.