Paul McCulloch

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) for an engineered dam constructed on their property.

The appellants argued that the dam did not "take" water but merely received it, and that it was constructed for flood control and wetland conservation, thereby exempting it from the PTTW requirement.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the dam impounds more than 50,000 litres of water per day, meeting the statutory definition of a water taking under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Tribunal found no applicable exemptions and upheld the requirement to apply for a PTTW, though it removed a condition requiring the appellants to submit a notarized agreement with a neighbouring golf course as part of the application.

The appellant municipality appealed a condition in its renewed municipal drinking water licence that imposed a new Total Chlorine Residual limit on media filter backwash effluent.

The appellant's existing system could not immediately comply with the new limit.

The parties reached a settlement to remove the limit from the current licence, with the appellant committing to make necessary system alterations before the 2026 licence renewal.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it satisfied statutory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and was in the public interest, as the delay posed no risk to drinking water and insignificant environmental impact.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a case management conference, the Ministry advised that a proposed amendment to O. Reg. 387/04 would exempt the dam from the permit requirement, but the timeline for the amendment was unknown.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing for May 2022, noting the matter had been languishing for over two years.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to address contamination from a former manufactured gas plant.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the revocation of the original order, the issuance of a new order specifying risk management measures for the affected properties, and the withdrawal of the appeals.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeals, and directed the issuance of the new order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit a completed application for a permit to take water for a constructed dam.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for status from various individuals and entities.

The Tribunal granted party status to a downgradient golf course, participant status to a co-owner of the subject property, and presenter status to neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also set procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing.

The applicant, a construction company, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing its appeal from sentences imposed for environmental offences.

The company was convicted of two counts of discharging material into a watercourse contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act and two counts of failing to notify the Ministry of the Environment of those discharges.

The total sentence imposed was $220,000 in fines.

The applicant argued the fines were excessive and that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should have been weighed differently.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of principle and noting that the sentencing judge's weighing of relevant factors was owed deference.

The City of Thunder Bay appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the Boulevard Lake Dam.

The parties reached a settlement to revise the permit to reflect the closure of a hydroelectric facility and clarify that water taking is for recreational and conservation uses only.

The Tribunal granted Presenter status to the North Shore Steelhead Association, who opposed the settlement seeking specific fishery objectives.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the revisions consistent with the Ontario Water Resources Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remediation and monitoring of groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following Nortel's insolvency proceedings, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants agreed to withdraw their appeals and the Director agreed to revoke the Order.

The Tribunal found that the proposed withdrawals and revocation were consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as a new Director's Order would be issued to the current property owner, backed by financial assurance, to ensure ongoing risk management measures are implemented.

The appeals were dismissed and the Order was revoked.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the assessment and remediation of groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following the appellant's insolvency and CCAA proceedings, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellant would contribute funds to the current site manager for ongoing remediation, and the Director would issue a new order with updated risk management requirements.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the withdrawal of the appeal and revocation of the original Director's Order were consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal upholding a Director's order under s. 18 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The order required the appellants, as owners or former owners/occupiers of a contaminated source property, to delineate contamination that had migrated to off-site properties.

The appellants argued s. 18 was limited to future events and on-site remediation, contrasting it with the fault-based s. 17.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's broad interpretation of s. 18—that it permits off-site orders and applies to existing, ongoing, and future adverse effects—was reasonable and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an Amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order setting dates for the disclosure of documents, exchange of witness statements, and the hearing of the appeal.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order adjourning the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Nation Rise Wind Farm on its own initiative for 44 days.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written closing submissions on health and wildlife issues according to the previously established schedule, and to propose a revised schedule for the completion of the hearing of groundwater evidence.

The appellant appealed the issuance of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

At a pre-hearing conference, several individuals and entities sought participant or presenter status.

The Tribunal granted the status requests but considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear evidence on all issues raised, including economic impacts and general animal health.

The Tribunal held that under the Environmental Protection Act, its jurisdiction is strictly limited to whether the project will cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that evidence regarding economic impacts and issues not pleaded in the Notice of Appeal were outside the scope of the hearing and could not be presented.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter and participant status to several individuals and entities.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions, including deadlines for document exchange and scheduling the hearing dates, while excluding certain issues from the scope of the hearing.

The City of Thunder Bay and Robert Whiteside appealed an amended Permit to Take Water issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The Tribunal held telephone conference calls to address the status of the appeals and scheduling.

The Tribunal dismissed Mr. Whiteside's appeal for lack of jurisdiction but granted his request for Party status, and scheduled a pre-hearing conference and a motion regarding the Director's jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contamination associated with a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties requested a further adjournment of the appeals to allow for continued discussions and the implementation of work plans.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and reasonable as progress was being made and there was no immediate threat to human health or the environment.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to issue an environmental compliance approval for a hauled sewage disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that included a draft amended approval with stringent conditions, a two-year expiry date, and an action plan for environmental monitoring.

The Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directing the issuance of the amended approval and dismissing the appeal.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Notice of Suspension of conditions for a waste disposal site, the Tribunal addressed requests for status and scheduled a preliminary motion.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens Against the ED19 Dump for the entire proceeding, including the preliminary motion, finding that the narrow costs rules under the Environmental Protection Act addressed the appellant's concerns about potential costs awards.

Several other individuals and organizations were granted participant or presenter status on consent.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Director's refusal to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage disposal site, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Township of Algonquin Highlands was granted party status.

Several individuals and a property owners' association were granted participant status, while one individual's request was deferred as she intended to be a witness.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for mediation and the hearing.

The appellants appealed an order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requiring them to delineate off-site contamination.

After an unsuccessful jurisdictional motion, the appellants withdrew their remaining grounds of appeal on the basis that the order's requirements had been or would be substantially complied with.

The Director consented to the withdrawal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.