Rodney V. Northey

The appellants appealed an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request to consolidate and hold a single joint hearing regarding a proposed development on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

On appeal, the respondent raised a new jurisdictional argument for the first time, asserting that certain regulations exempted the potential water hearings from consolidation.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter to a new panel of the OMB to consider the jurisdictional question with the benefit of a full factual context, and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Following a successful motion to quash a judicial review application, the moving party sought costs of $15,000 plus disbursements, as well as costs for other respondents.

The responding party opposed the quantum.

The Divisional Court found the motion was straightforward and essentially undefended, making the claimed counsel fee unwarranted.

The court fixed costs at $8,379.38 inclusive of GST and disbursements, and denied the request for costs for the other respondents due to a lack of evidence.

The moving party brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside a previous decision refusing leave to intervene as a friend of the Court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application involved certificates of approval granted under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Court treated the motion as a hearing de novo due to the moving party refining his position.

Finding that the case engaged matters of public concern and that the moving party had special knowledge and expertise regarding the statement of environmental values, the Court granted leave to intervene.

The Industry Coalition for Environmental Fairness Inc. (ICEF) and the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of an Environmental Review Tribunal decision.

The underlying judicial review concerned the test for leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights regarding certificates of approval issued to a cement company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that ICEF lacked a direct interest and would not make a useful contribution without causing delay, and that the Environmental Commissioner's proposed intervention would not provide a different perspective from the existing parties and would likely prejudice them.

The applicant First Nations sought judicial review to quash a Notice of Completion of an Environmental Study Report regarding the transfer of the Seaton lands by the Ontario Realty Corporation.

The applicants argued the Crown breached its constitutional and statutory duties to consult them about potential aboriginal burial sites on the lands.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no constitutional duty to consult because the applicants had surrendered their rights to the lands under the 1923 Williams Treaties.

The court also held that the statutory consultation process under the Environmental Assessment Act was procedurally fair, noting the broad nature of the assessment and the effective involvement of the Founding First Nations Circle.

The appellant challenged the sale of a cemetery by the Ontario Realty Corporation to a private company proposing to build a crematorium, seeking judicial review of the Director's decision to issue a certificate of air approval and the ORC's environmental assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the Director's decision was not patently unreasonable and that the ORC correctly concluded it was not required to apply its class environmental assessment process to the purchaser's subsequent planning actions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of decisions by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Realty Corporation relating to the sale of a former psychiatric hospital cemetery to a private purchaser who intended to build a crematorium.

The applicant argued that the MOE Director erred in issuing an air approval without considering fine particulate emissions and that the ORC failed to conduct a proper environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's decision was not patently unreasonable given the lack of existing standards for fine particulates at the time, and that the ORC reasonably applied its Class Environmental Assessment, which did not require assessing the private purchaser's subsequent planning actions.

The Municipality of Grey Highlands brought a motion to intervene as an added party in an appeal concerning a permit to take water and related official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The respondent supported the application, while the appellants opposed it.

The Chief Justice found that the Municipality had an immediate interest in the subject matter, having been a party before the Ontario Municipal Board, and that its addition would not delay or prejudice the appellants.

The motion to intervene was granted.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision which held that the commercial taking of water was not a 'use of land' under the Planning Act and therefore outside its jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the extraction of water using piping and pumps constitutes a use of land.

The Court held that the OMB erred in law by refusing to consider the water taking aspect of the proposed operation and directed a rehearing to consider the entire application for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.