Sarah Valair

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding a property containing an old tailings pond and waste rock site.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had reached a potential settlement, subject to the appellant completing certain equipment setup to prevent groundwater contaminant exceedances.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, which may be converted to a settlement hearing, and ordered that this matter not be heard together with a related file.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but were awaiting the resolution of related files.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference, with the option to convert it to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a case management conference, the parties advised they were working towards a settlement but required extensions to several compliance deadlines in the Order.

On consent, the Tribunal granted the deadline extensions and ordered that the appeal be heard separately from another related file.

A further case management conference was scheduled to monitor progress or proceed as a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the operation and maintenance of a mobile treatment unit at a former mine site.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that minutes of settlement had been signed, pending the completion of certain equipment installations.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal be heard together with a related matter and scheduled a subsequent case management conference to monitor settlement progress.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring mitigation of mine effluent impacts at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but required additional time to complete certain actions, including equipment installation and remediation fund allocation, before finalizing the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2025, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that settlement discussions were productive and requested a second CMC to either present a settlement proposal or schedule a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 27, 2025.

The appellants appealed a cost recovery order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks following an explosion and fire at a hazardous waste processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement reducing the payable amount from $133,097.14 to $100,000, removing the individual directors from the order, and requiring a site closure plan.

The City of St. Catharines sought Party status but was granted Participant status to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it ensured recovery of reasonable costs and provided for the prompt closure and remediation of the site.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ontario Graphite Ltd. against Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The orders relate to contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The appellant requested an adjournment because they had retained new counsel who needed time to review the file.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directed the parties to continue discussions to narrow the issues, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2025.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a Municipal Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines following a spill at a hazardous waste facility.

Both the appellants and the respondent filed motions shortly before the scheduled merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted relief from its rules regarding motion timelines and directed that both motions be heard on the first day of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal also granted a one-day adjournment of the merit hearing for confidential personal reasons and issued directions regarding the hearing plan and joint book of documents.

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 brought a motion seeking an order for discovery, an affidavit of documents from the City, and an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing regarding a $4.1 million cost recovery order for an environmental spill.

The appellants argued that the City's document productions were deficient and illegible.

The City opposed the adjournment but agreed during the hearing to provide a sworn affidavit of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the City to deliver the affidavit of documents in a legible and searchable format and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the appellants were entitled to file reply submissions and were not case splitting.

The appellant appealed the revocation of an Environmental Compliance Approval for a non-hazardous solid waste transfer facility.

During the hearing, after the appellant's first witness was cross-examined, the appellant received instructions to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal withdrawn on consent.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions were continuing and requested a further conference.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 19, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The parties reported progress in their discussions and requested that the scheduled October 2024 hearing dates be vacated.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the hearing dates, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024.

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 appellants appealed a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines under the Environmental Protection Act for over $4.1 million in expenses related to a spill and fire.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested a motion date to seek additional disclosure of documents and invoices from the City, and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The City opposed the adjournment and argued it had already provided extensive disclosure.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion for additional disclosure particulars but did not adjourn the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of three related proceedings to ensure an efficient process and avoid inconsistent decisions.

A further Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing on the merits were scheduled, and a Procedural Order was approved.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Appellant requested a brief adjournment on consent to retain new counsel.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for June 25, 2024.

The applicants sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants had a timely intention to appeal, their explanation for the delay was inadequate, there was continuing prejudice to the public interest due to delayed enforcement of an environmental order, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court emphasized that lack of merit alone can be determinative in such motions.