Shane Sukerman

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take preventive measures regarding the off-site discharge of contaminated stormwater from a brownfield property.

The Appellants argued that the Director lacked jurisdiction because there was no evidence of an actual adverse effect or actual impairment of water quality.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act permit preventive measures orders where there is a potential for adverse effects or impairment.

The Tribunal found the site to be highly contaminated, with stormwater exceeding aquatic life guideline values for contaminants like hexavalent chromium by several orders of magnitude, and confirmed the Director's Order in its entirety.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. against a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order sets the hearing dates, procedural deadlines for disclosure, witness statements, and expert meetings, and identifies the parties and issues to be determined.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. against a Director's Order concerning air emissions and biofilter installation.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation and confirmed no motion to stay was necessary.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence by video on June 16, 2026, and directed the parties to file a final Procedural Order and Issues List by June 1, 2026.

The Appellants brought a motion to adjourn the scheduled hearing of their appeal of a Director's Order regarding sewage works on their property.

They sought a three-month adjournment to allow time to complete and submit an amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application, which they argued would resolve the issues in dispute.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing that the ECA process is separate from the appeal of the Order and that previous adjournments had not resulted in a resolution.

The Tribunal applied the criteria for adjournments and found no serious consequences or prejudice to the Appellants if the hearing proceeded, as they could pursue the ECA concurrently.

Noting the history of previous adjournments and the public interest in an expeditious resolution, the Tribunal denied the motion to adjourn.

During a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Director's Order regarding odour emissions from a poultry farm, the Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Director argued the appellant failed to respond to a Tribunal request for information.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding the appellant's failure was due to a misunderstanding and did not warrant summary dismissal.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to a nearby resident and directed the parties to engage in settlement discussions and expert meetings.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order relating to sewage works, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing to allow time for the Director to consider an amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal directed that the adjournment request be heard via a written motion and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to resolve inadequacies in existing sewage works on a property with a history of industrial uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that their experts were engaged in productive discussions and requested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence in September 2025, which will be vacated if mediation is successful, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to address inadequate sewage works and prevent the discharge of contaminants from the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to allow their respective experts to continue productive discussions towards a long-term plan for the property.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

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.

The appellant sought a hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the cessation of active farming on specified fields to prevent sediment discharge.

The Director submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellant failed to request a review of the Order within the statutory seven-day period.

The Tribunal found that the Order was deemed served on April 2, 2024, and the appellant's request for review on April 12, 2024, was out of time.

Consequently, no Director's Order was issued, and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act.

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 appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services after five dogs were removed from his residence.

The dogs were removed following complaints and video evidence showing the appellant repeatedly striking the dogs, which an expert veterinarian concluded caused physical and psychological distress.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that the removal was necessary and lawful.

The Board dismissed the appeal and ordered that the dogs not be returned to the appellant.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered the return of the appellant's cats.

The animals had since been forfeited to the Crown due to the appellant's failure to pay a subsequent Statement of Account, rendering the return issue moot.

The Board exercised its discretion to hear the moot request and found that the original panel breached procedural fairness by considering the lawfulness of a critical distress entry without giving the Inspector notice or an opportunity to lead evidence.

The Board also found an error of law, as the animals were ordered returned without evidence that the conditions causing distress had ceased.

The reconsideration was granted, the order returning the animals was struck, and the appellant's request for costs was denied.