Rebecca Crangle

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the processing of agricultural material at a site in Kingsville.

The parties reached a settlement and proposed Minutes of Settlement to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be consistent with the purpose and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal of the appeals, dismissed the appeals, and directed the Director to issue an amended order pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Little Brown Bat and Blanding's turtle.

In the remedy phase, the Approval Holder proposed mitigation plans to address the Tribunal's previous findings of harm.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the mitigation plans and applied the precautionary principle.

The Tribunal accepted the bat mitigation plan with a modification to extend turbine curtailment to sunrise.

However, the Tribunal found the proposed road restoration measures for Blanding's turtle were novel and unstudied, and therefore removed the turbines associated with those road upgrades from the approval.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to submit an application for an environmental compliance approval for air discharges at an agricultural material processing site.

The appellants brought a motion seeking a stay of Item 3 of the order pending the disposition of their appeals.

The Director consented to the stay without condition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found no statutory bar to granting the stay and granted the motion on consent.

The appellant brought three motions in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

The motions sought to qualify a witness as an expert and to admit new evidence.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motions in part, qualifying the witness as an energy consultant and admitting specific documents attached to the affidavits of the witness and another expert into evidence, while allowing the respondents to cross-examine the affiants on the newly admitted documents.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that did not alter the approval.

The appellant withdrew the appeal on consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without costs pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to a hydroelectric station on the Mississippi River.

The applicants raised concerns regarding water levels, endangered species habitat, and conflict with a water management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that both applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants failed to establish under the first branch of the test in s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights that no reasonable person could have made the decision to issue the permit.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

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 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 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 appellant appealed an Environmental Compliance Approval issued to the instrument holder for sewage works at a motel.

Following a previous Tribunal order directing the reconsideration of certain variables, the parties agreed to revisions to the approval.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendments satisfied its previous order, allowed the appeal in part, and ordered the Director to amend the approval accordingly, lifting the automatic stay.

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.

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.

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 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.