Sarah Alexandra McIntyre Kromkamp

The plaintiff brought a motion to establish a discovery plan, seeking production of three disputed categories of documents relating to other properties included in or removed from the Greenbelt Area.

The court dismissed the request for documents relating to 15 sites removed after a 10-year review and submissions regarding 700 properties, finding them irrelevant to the plaintiff's specific allegations.

However, the court ordered the production of documents relating to certain Vaughan lands, as they were relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded allegations of arbitrary and capricious treatment compared to the owners of those lands.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his statement of claim against the Crown without leave to amend.

The claim arose from the appellant's failed attempt to initiate a private prosecution and alleged that Crown employees instructed a court reporter to provide a false transcript and refused to assist with complaints about the transcript.

The motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the test under Rule 21 and that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues that should have been addressed in his abandoned appeal.

The Children's Lawyer for Ontario appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner's order that the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) had custody or control of the Children's Lawyer's litigation records relating to child clients, and therefore such records were subject to freedom of information access requests under FIPPA.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Children's Lawyer operates independently from MAG with respect to her core functions of representing children, and therefore MAG does not have custody or control of child client records.

The court emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the Children's Lawyer-child relationship to the proper functioning of the legal system and the best interests of children.

The Appellant, an auto wrecking business, appealed a Director's Order requiring the design and implementation of a storm water management system following a petroleum spill into a nearby creek.

During the protracted pre-hearing process, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) requested and was granted participant status due to its mandate to protect the affected watershed and its status as a downstream property owner.

The Tribunal documented the extensive history of the pre-hearing process, which involved 22 status updates over three years, and adjourned the preliminary hearing to allow the parties to continue developing the required storm water management plan.

The appellant municipality appealed three Provincial Officer's Orders requiring it to address nuisance bears at three waste disposal sites.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement based on an Action Plan developed by the municipality.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, directed the revocation of the orders, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a Permit to Take Water issued to Port Colborne Quarries Inc. The applications were received by the Tribunal 16 days after notice of the decision was posted on the Environmental Registry, missing the 15-day statutory deadline under s. 40 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory deadline and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him and others to complete work regarding an oil spill in a storm sewer outfall.

After the required work was completed to the Director's satisfaction, the Director proposed to revoke the order.

The Tribunal found the revocation to be consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, and in the public interest.

The Director's Order was revoked against the appellant, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop and implement measures to prevent adverse effects from the discharge of contaminants at a former manufactured gas plant site.

The parties agreed to two work plans and requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for the implementation of these plans and to amend the compliance dates in the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found the adjournment request fair and reasonable under Rule 105 and granted the adjournment to June 2017 for a status update.

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 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 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 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 approval holder brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine the remedy for a revoked renewable energy approval because the statutory six-month time limit had expired, resulting in a deemed confirmation of the Director's decision.

In the alternative, the approval holder sought the recusal of the Tribunal panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it had disposed of the hearing within the statutory time limit when it issued its original decision, and that the deeming provision did not apply to a remedy hearing remitted by the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support the allegations of bias.

The appellant appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the removal of waste and installation of spill containment structures at a waste transfer site.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement and requested the revocation of the Order.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the waste removal requirements and was working towards compliance with the spill containment requirements under the supervision of the local Ministry office.

The Tribunal concluded that revoking the Order was consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, revoked the Order, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot mix asphalt plant and aggregate depot.

The applicant raised concerns regarding noise, air emissions, and the facility's location, but failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the Ministry's engineers.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding the applicant did not meet the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm, arguing the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appellant relied primarily on lay witnesses expressing concerns about noise, shadow flicker, aviation safety, and impacts on species at risk, supported by one expert whose evidence was found insufficient.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus under the Environmental Protection Act, as the evidence amounted only to expressions of concern and was contradicted by the respondents' extensive expert evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the approval holder's mid-hearing non-suit motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to establish a prima facie case, noting a lack of submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of such a motion in the public interest context of REA appeals.

The appeal was dismissed and the REA confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the permit holder for dewatering a limestone quarry.

The appellant argued the supporting documentation was inadequate, the terms did not safeguard public interests, and the permit holder had a history of non-compliance.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while recent structural geology investigations and monitoring data adequately addressed hydrogeological uncertainties, the PTTW required amendments.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the permitted water taking volume, enhanced groundwater monitoring, the implementation of water conservation measures, and the addition of specific triggers and compliance mechanisms to the contingency plan.

The appellant appealed a Permit to Take Water issued to the instrument holder for quarry dewatering.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered amendments to the permit.

The amendments included reduced daily water taking limits, enhanced groundwater monitoring requirements, and the implementation of a contingency plan with specific trigger events.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm.

The Tribunal granted presenter status to the Township of Norwich on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also issued detailed procedural directions for the main hearing, including deadlines for witness statements, expert qualifications, and final submissions.

The Permit Holder brought a motion to amend an earlier Tribunal order that partially lifted an automatic stay on a Permit to Take Water for a quarry.

The Permit Holder sought to extend the dewatering period from 10 to 30 days, citing a larger than expected volume of accumulated spring melt water and precipitation.

The Appellant opposed the extension, raising concerns about potential environmental impacts and questioning the Permit Holder's claims of irreparable harm.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test and section 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, the Tribunal found that the Permit Holder would suffer irreparable harm if unable to access the quarry floor, and that a short-term extension would not pose a serious risk of environmental impairment.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion, extending the stay lift for an additional 10 days to allow the removal of up to 23 million litres of water, subject to strict monitoring and contingency conditions.