Paul McCulloch

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to review an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed their application for costs against Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

MBQ argued that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider their unique circumstances as a First Nation at the first stage of the costs analysis (determining whether conduct was unreasonable).

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no error of law in the original panel's application of the three-stage costs analysis under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the cleanup and removal of asbestos waste material on his property.

After completing the cleanup to the Director's satisfaction, the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend an Environmental Compliance Approval to permit the acceptance and transfer of asbestos-contaminated materials at a waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellant sought to withdraw its appeals.

The Tribunal found the proposed amended Environmental Compliance Approval consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed them, and ordered the Director to issue the amended approval.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to prevent adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants at a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties agreed to two work plans and requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for the implementation of these plans and to amend the compliance dates in the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found the adjournment request fair and reasonable under Rule 105 and granted the adjournment to June 2017 for a status update.

The appellant sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring the cleanup and removal of alleged asbestos waste on his property.

The Director consented to the stay pending a prehearing conference, provided the material remained safely tarped.

The Tribunal found that a stay would not result in danger to health or safety under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay on consent.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges under the Environmental Protection Act for operating a waste disposal site without a Certificate of Approval and disposing of waste contrary to their Waste Management System Approval.

The core issue was whether the respondent's approval for "collection, handling and transportation" implicitly included storage.

The court found that storage was not authorized and that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the approval and the application of due diligence.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a stay of proceedings was ordered, as further proceedings were deemed not in the interests of justice.

The Concerned Citizens Committee of Tyendinaga and Environs appealed conditions of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the closure of the Richmond Landfill Site.

The Tribunal considered the final wording of the conditions, rejecting an additional sentence proposed by the appellant regarding the delineation of leachate-impacted groundwater as redundant.

The Tribunal also granted an extension of time for the instrument holder to complete required work.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Director was ordered to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval.

The instrument holder, Waste Management of Canada Corporation, requested an extension of a deadline set out in an interim order regarding an Environmental Compliance Approval for a landfill site.

The extension was needed to complete unanticipated additional drilling and testing for groundwater monitoring wells.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the reasonable explanation and lack of objections from other parties, and ordered the Director to amend the ECA accordingly on an interim basis.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

The parties requested on consent that the proceeding be adjourned and the existing stay of the order be extended to allow time to finalize remedial actions.

The Tribunal found no concerns under section 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act and granted the requested extension and adjournment.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order concerning groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following negotiations, Nortel and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change reached a framework agreement regarding remediation.

The parties consented to an order extending the stay of certain items in the Director's Order until June 30, 2015, and requiring Nortel to submit revised restorative action plans.

The Tribunal accepted the consent order, finding no bars to the stay under the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order concerning groundwater contamination remediation.

Following negotiations and related court proceedings, the parties agreed to amend the stay of the order and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal, save for two specific issues regarding future work plans and management/control.

The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay and accepted the partial withdrawal of the appeal on consent.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring remedial measures for groundwater contamination at a former manufacturing site.

Following a settlement agreement where Nortel agreed to pay $300,000 to the new property owner (Taggart) and Taggart agreed to a new Director's Order requiring remediation backed by financial assurance, the Director proposed to revoke the original order.

The Tribunal found the proposed revocation was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the order, and dismissed the appeals.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion for costs in an ongoing environmental appeal.

Due to an objection by Waste Management of Canada Corporation regarding mediation confidentiality, MBQ requested that the motion be deferred until after the main hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered that the motion materials be marked confidential pending the hearing of the motion.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was engaged in a blasting operation that sent fly-rock onto neighbouring private property, causing damage.

The appellant did not report the incident to the Ministry of the Environment and was charged with failing to report the discharge of a contaminant under s. 15(1) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellant argued that reporting was only required if the discharge caused non-trivial harm to the natural environment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of 'adverse effect' includes property damage as an independent trigger for liability, regardless of whether the natural environment itself is harmed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision convicting it of failing to report a discharge of a contaminant under the Environmental Protection Act.

The incident involved fly-rock from a blasting operation that damaged a house and a vehicle.

The moving party argued that the duty to report requires a more than trivial environmental impact.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the duty to report raises a question of law and is essential in the public interest.