Priya Vittal

The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.

The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.

The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.

The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.

The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project.

Following a finding that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to consider remedies.

The appellants brought a motion requesting that the continuation of the hearing be held in person rather than in writing.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that receiving evidence in writing was fair, would prevent further delay given the statutory six-month deadline, and would provide the best evidence to fulfill its mandate.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The Tribunal issued an order regarding the scope of the continuation of a hearing concerning appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal had previously found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment.

In this order, the Tribunal determined that the Approval Holder would be permitted to adduce additional evidence regarding proposed remedies to address the identified harm.

The Tribunal also clarified the tests, considerations, and onus of proof applicable under section 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act for the remedy phase of the hearing.

The Appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Due to the complexity of the hearing and numerous motions, the statutory six-month deadline for disposition was approaching.

The Tribunal ordered an adjournment on its own initiative, with the consent of the Appellant and Director, to allow sufficient time to deliberate and write its decision.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

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 plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.

The appellant in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry herpetologist to testify about impacts on Blanding's turtles.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons but simultaneously granted the proposed witness's application to cancel it, finding that while the evidence was relevant, it was not necessary because the appellant was already calling its own expert on the subject.

The Environmental Review Tribunal ordered an adjournment of the hearing regarding the Renewable Energy Approval for the Amherst Island Wind Project for a period of 19 days.

The date of deemed confirmation of the approval was extended accordingly.

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 decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

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 Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, alleging it would cause serious harm to human health and the natural environment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellants withdrew their appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the decision under appeal was not altered by the settlement.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval issued to Meyer Wind Power for a Class 3 wind facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellants agreed to withdraw their appeal without altering the approval.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

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 Approval Holder brought a motion for particulars and to strike portions of the Appellants' Notice of Appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal granted the motion for particulars, finding the Appellants failed to provide sufficient detail as required by previous Tribunal guidance.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike the environmental grounds, finding it premature as the Appellants indicated they were seeking expert 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.