Scott Stoll

The applicant sought the use of surface rights on unpatented mining claims for a power transmission line.

After the respondent indicated an intention to appear at the scheduled in-person hearing, the applicant requested the matter proceed by written hearing.

The respondent consented.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the in-person hearing and established a schedule for written submissions.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, alleging it would cause serious harm to human health and the natural environment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellants withdrew their appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the decision under appeal was not altered by the settlement.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval issued to Meyer Wind Power for a Class 3 wind facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the appellants agreed to withdraw their appeal without altering the approval.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Approval Holder brought a motion for particulars and to strike portions of the Appellants' Notice of Appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal granted the motion for particulars, finding the Appellants failed to provide sufficient detail as required by previous Tribunal guidance.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike the environmental grounds, finding it premature as the Appellants indicated they were seeking expert evidence.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm.

The approval holder brought a motion for particulars regarding the alleged health impacts and a motion to strike certain paragraphs of the notice of appeal relating to environmental issues.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the motion for particulars, ordering the appellants to provide specific details about the alleged serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike the paragraphs relating to environmental issues.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board that renewed its franchise agreement with the Town of Aylmer for a three-year term instead of the requested twenty-year term.

The appellant argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction by relying on prior orders that were subsequently set aside and by failing to properly consider the public interest and adverse impacts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was discretionary and fact-intensive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate any extricable error of law or jurisdiction.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its judicial review application pending the Ontario Energy Board's reconsideration of an earlier decision regarding the applicant's failure to sign an assignment document.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment, noting that the outcome of the reconsideration could significantly impact the judicial review application.

Costs of $600 each were awarded to the intervenors.