Richard Douglas Butler

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following Peel's successful motion to revoke a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash.

Peel argued the Director engaged in unreasonable conduct by issuing the order and opposing the revocation motion.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the Director's conduct in the course of the appeal was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.

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 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.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste ash from a property.

At a preliminary hearing, the appellants sought a stay of the order pending the resolution of the appeals.

The Director consented to a stay of most items in the order, as there was no evidence of potential harm to human health or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay in part and also granted participant status to the City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association for the purpose of a forthcoming motion to revoke the order against the Regional Municipality of Peel.

The Regional Municipality of Peel applied for costs against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change following the revocation of a 2013 Director's Order and the dismissal of the related appeal proceeding.

Peel argued the Director's conduct was unreasonable due to delays in issuing a new 2015 Director's Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied the Baker standard and found that the Director's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just, expeditious, and cost-effective determination of the proceeding.

The costs application was dismissed.

The Regional Municipality of Peel brought a motion to revoke a Director's Order regarding the removal of waste ash from a site, requesting the motion be heard prior to the main appeals.

The City of Toronto and the Ontario Waste Management Association sought participant status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted participant status to both entities and ordered that Peel's motion to revoke be heard prior to the hearing of the appeals, subject to a schedule for disclosure.

Following the discontinuance of an environmental contamination action seeking $20 million in damages, the defendant successfully obtained costs of the action.

The present endorsement addressed the costs of the defendant’s motion for those costs.

The court found the defendant reasonably brought the motion because the plaintiffs did not admit entitlement to costs until late in the proceedings, though most of the motion work related to the disputed quantum rather than entitlement.

As neither party achieved success on the principal issue of quantum, the court declined to award costs for that portion of the motion.

Limited costs were awarded for the entitlement issue caused by the plaintiffs’ delayed admission.

The applicant mining company brought a motion to strike portions of a respondent’s affidavit and factum on the basis that they disclosed communications made during settlement negotiations.

The court considered the principles governing settlement privilege as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada and the conditions required for the privilege to arise.

It found that a litigious dispute existed or was contemplated at the time of the communications, the communications were made with an implied intention of confidentiality, and their purpose was to attempt settlement of the dispute.

As no competing public interest justified disclosure, the communications were protected by settlement privilege.

The court ordered that the impugned passages and documents be struck or expunged from the responding materials.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Master who declined to proceed with a reference related to a judgment for partition and sale of several apartment properties.

After obtaining the judgment, the appellant privately sold its minority interest to the majority owner outside the reference process and removed the instrument registering the judgment for sale.

The appellant later sought to continue the reference solely to pursue an accounting against the property manager for alleged overcharged management fees.

The court held that the reference was governed by the judgment for sale and that the accounting was merely ancillary to the sale process.

Because the appellant’s private transaction rendered the judgment for sale moot, the Master correctly found that she lacked jurisdiction to continue the reference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant Ministry of Transportation (MTO) brought a motion to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim to plead that the plaintiff was a tenant at will of the Crown and that no compensation was owed under the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike existing paragraphs of the defence.

The court denied the MTO's request to amend the pleadings regarding the tenancy at will issue, finding it was barred by res judicata as it should have been pursued in a prior proceeding before the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

However, the court allowed the amendment regarding the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike was dismissed.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) appealed a decision validating a mining claim staked on Crown land where the MTO was planning a new highway route.

The MTO argued the land was in 'actual use' and thus exempt from staking under the Mining Act.

The Mining and Land Commissioner found the MTO's preliminary planning activities did not constitute 'actual use'.

The Court of Appeal applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that drawing the line between preliminary and substantive use was within the Commissioner's expertise and the outcome was reasonable.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada appealed an order requiring the production of an aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to NAV Canada in the context of civil litigation arising from an airplane crash.

The Board argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test under s. 28(6) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly balanced the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the statutory privilege attached to the CVR.

The court upheld the production order, noting the CVR's high relevance and reliability, but reversed a minor order regarding a flight animation that was not properly before the motion judge.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision and filed an affidavit containing evidence directed at the issue of public importance.

The responding party objected, arguing that any material filed on a leave motion must already exist within the court file.

The chambers judge held that a party seeking leave to appeal may file factual evidence directed at the issue of public importance, but must follow the proper procedure by filing a motion to admit the evidence along with the application for leave to appeal.

The respondent leased a car to a company, which in turn leased it to an employee.

The employee made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The respondent had not registered its security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA), leaving it unperfected.

The trustee in bankruptcy claimed the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle, arguing that under s. 20(b)(i) of the PPSA, an unperfected security interest is ineffective against a trustee in bankruptcy.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, holding that the bankrupt's right to use and possession of the car constituted property that passed to the trustee under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and the unperfected security interest was subordinate to the trustee's interest.