Sarah Alexandra McIntyre Kromkamp

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision, while the Town and a community organization appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the same residential project.

The Tribunal considered extensive expert evidence on hydrogeology, stormwater management, and natural heritage, particularly concerning potential impacts on local groundwater, private wells, and sensitive Brook Trout habitat.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed phased development, supported by advanced wastewater treatment and rigorous monitoring conditions, would not cause negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal confirmed the development permit and approved the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to agreed conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dismissing their appeal from an order of the Director.

The appellants argued that the Director improperly implemented a settlement by revoking a prior order and issuing a new one, rather than amending the existing order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal that the form of implementation was immaterial and that the new order substantively implemented the settlement.

The appellant appealed a new condition imposed by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks on an amended Environmental Compliance Approval for a landfill site.

The condition required the appellant to keep leachate levels within each landfill cell at less than 0.5 metres over the landfill base clay surface.

The appellant argued that the site-specific design, based on a hydraulic trap system, supported a leachate level of 1.5 metres, and that the 0.5-metre limit was scientifically unjustified and would cause severe operational disruptions.

The Tribunal found that while a limit was necessary to prevent obstruction of the leachate collection system, the site-specific modelling supported a higher level.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, altering the condition to require leachate levels to be kept at less than 1.5 metres over the landfill base clay surface.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order prescribing actions to dispose, manage, and reduce leachate from its hazardous waste management facility.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Order to require specific monthly leachate disposal volumes based on the site's estimated leachate volume, and to incorporate these requirements into an updated Design and Operations Plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be protective of the environment and in the public interest, approved the Minutes of Settlement, and directed the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the disposal of leachate and submission of an abatement plan under the Environmental Protection Act.

At the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached but the agreement was still being drafted.

The parties requested an adjournment to finalize the settlement documents.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a new video hearing date.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the remediation of illegal demolition waste dumped on an unlicensed site.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant abandoned its appeal and the parties presented a proposed settlement in the form of a new Director's Order with a detailed remediation work programme.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the original Director's Order revoked against the appellant and directed the issuance of the new Director's Order as set out in the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a consultant and apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval to address failing illegal sewage systems at their motel and trailer park.

The appellants argued that the sole director of the corporate owner should be removed from the order and cited financial hardship.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sole director had management and control of the site, financial hardship was not grounds to remove a person from a control document, and the appellants were operating illegal failing sewage systems in violation of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Director, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The appellant appealed a condition in an amended Environmental Compliance Approval that imposed a more stringent leachate level for a landfilling site.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing and directed the parties to file a procedural order.

During a Telephone Conference Call regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the appellant sought to be represented by a consultant.

The Tribunal determined that the consultant did not hold a Class P1 licence from the Law Society of Ontario and did not meet the exemption criteria under By-law 4 to provide legal services.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's owner a two-week adjournment to consult with legal counsel regarding representation and next steps.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an environmental compliance order concerning benzene emissions, three community members sought party status.

The Tribunal granted them party status under s. 145(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, finding their individual perspectives on health impacts would assist the adjudication.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant leave to amend its grounds for appeal in light of a new federal Interim Order and provincial regulation.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Penalty Order issued by the Director of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for total reduced sulphur discharge exceedances.

The Ministry subsequently conceded that it lacked the legal authority to issue the order, as the specific contraventions were not prescribed in the applicable regulations for environmental penalties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and revoked the order on consent, finding the revocation to be in the public interest.

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing regarding an appeal of a Director's Order requiring the removal of demolition waste.

The appellant argued that an adjournment was warranted because a third party had recently pleaded guilty to environmental charges related to the site and proposed a remediation plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that proceeding with the hearing was in the public interest, maintained procedural fairness, and complied with the approved procedural order, noting that the third party's guilty plea did not resolve the appellant's obligations under the Director's Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd. against a Director's Order and the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval related to benzene emissions.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation requested and was granted party status without objection, given its direct interest and the health impacts experienced by its members.

The Tribunal also set dates for the first Case Management Conference and a two-day stay motion, and established a schedule for the exchange of motion materials.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a solid non-hazardous waste transfer facility.

The applicant argued the facility posed risks to local groundwater and the Thames River, and that public consultation was inadequate.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but failed the reasonableness test for leave to appeal.

The evidence showed all waste handling would occur indoors on an impermeable floor, posing no risk to water resources, and that the Director had considered all applicable laws, policies, and public comments.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal received a request to amend the dates contained in a previously issued Procedural Order regarding an appeal under the Environmental Protection Act concerning the removal of demolition waste.

The Tribunal granted the request for an extension of time and issued a revised Procedural Order to govern the processes and procedures leading up to the hearing scheduled for September 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order related to waste disposal at a salvage yard, the parties sought approval of a draft Procedural Order.

The parties disagreed on the timing of witness statements and the necessity of examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal adjusted the delivery date for witness statements to accommodate potential motions for examinations and approved the revised Procedural Order, scheduling a ten-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a consultant and apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval for a private sewage works at a motel and trailer park.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested an extension of the Order's timelines, arguing they intended to cease operations and dismantle the septic system by November 2024.

The Director opposed the extension, citing environmental risks.

The Tribunal scheduled a future Case Management Conference and a two-day merit hearing, allowing the parties time to attempt settlement negotiations.

The City of Barrie appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Director to Laguna Trading Ltd. for a waste disposal site.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the City had no right of appeal under s. 139 of the Environmental Protection Act and had missed the deadline to seek leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal found that the City did not have a right of appeal under s. 139, as it was not the applicant or holder of the approval.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the mandatory 15-day deadline for seeking leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's failure to consider the City's comments prior to issuing the approval did not create a right of appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to amend and revocation of Environmental Compliance Approvals for a waste transfer station and air emissions.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement and the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease the use of an unregistered methyl bromide pesticide product and prepare a disposal plan.

Prior to the motion hearing for a stay, the appellant withdrew its appeal with the consent of the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the motion for a stay in accordance with its Rules of Practice.