Court File and Parties

Court File No.: DC 19/264 Date: 2020-05-26 Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court - Ontario

Re: Nation Rise Wind Farm v. Minister of the Environment

Before: D.L. Corbett J.

Counsel: Eric Gillespie and Kathleen Coulter – Concerned Citizens of North Stormont Judy Im and Andi Jin – Ontario John Terry, Stefan Case and John Silver – Nation Rise Wind Farm Christopher Bredt and Eva Krajewska – CanWEA

Case Management Endorsement

[1] The court has received correspondence from counsel for Concerned Citizens of North Stormont following release of the court’s case management endorsement yesterday. Ordinarily the court does not expect such correspondence, but in this case it is helpful.

[2] Counsel correctly notes that counsel requested the case management conference to discuss a possible recusal motion, based on information that had recently come to the attention of Concerned Citizens of North Stormont. Counsel notes that, as of the time of the case management conference, no decision had been made to proceed with the motion. Second, counsel advises that Mr Jacobsen has been consulted for an opinion but has not been retained to argue the motion. Counsel advises that Concerned Citizens of North Stormont does not intend to provide an affidavit from counsel on any recusal motion. On this latter point, it is of course up to Concerned Citizens of North Stormont to decide what materials to file on any motion it brings. However, counsel’s awareness of the facts underlying the allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias could be relevant to the motion: such an allegation should be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the cases seem to establish that the knowledge of counsel may be relevant to that issue. It is, of course, for counsel and his client to decide how to handle this issue.

[3] Counsel correctly notes that, during discussion of a possible notice under Rule 2.1, the issue was raised (by this court) whether the Registrar or this court has jurisdiction to proceed by way of Rule 2.1, given the principle that allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias are to be returned before the court alleged to have a reasonable allegation of bias. If this court directs the Registrar to issue a notice pursuant to Rule 2.1, the issue of jurisdiction may be raised addressed in any response to that notice.

[4] As counsel notes in his letter, a number of issues were discussed that may be part of settlement discussions among the parties – discussions to which the court is not and should not be privy. These discussions could, of course, affect any decisions made by the parties about how best to proceed.

D.L. Corbett J. Date: May 27, 2020