Sylvia Davis

The appellants brought a motion for an order requiring the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to disclose all records relating to an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing the documents were irrelevant and the request was a fishing expedition.

The Tribunal found the documents were likely relevant to the appellants' grounds for appeal regarding whether pre-existing septic systems were properly decommissioned.

The motion for disclosure was granted.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to perform work and provide financial assurance regarding a foundry sand waste pile on their property.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellants would withdraw their appeal, the original order would be revoked, and a new order would be issued requiring the complete removal of the foundry sand by November 1, 2019.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, accepted the withdrawal of the appeal, and dismissed the proceeding.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding two consolidated appeals related to a heating oil spill at a former school site.

The first appeal concerned a municipal order directing the school board to pay cleanup costs, while the second concerned a Director's order issued to both the municipality and the school board.

The Tribunal established a procedural schedule for the first phase of the municipal order appeal and directed the parties to provide an update on their mediation efforts regarding the Director's order.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Environmental Review Tribunal ordered the consolidation of two appeals related to an Environmental Penalty Order and a Director's Order Amendment concerning water quality and acid mine drainage at the Kearney Graphite Mine Site.

The Tribunal also granted party status to Algonquin Eco Watch and participant status to Magnetawan First Nation, POWR-MAG, and the Kearney Watershed Environmental Foundation, and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference to allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct a vapour intrusion assessment program at residential properties adjacent to their industrial facility.

After complying with the order and conducting the required sampling, the appellants sought to withdraw their appeals.

With the consent of the Director and no objection from the presenter, the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.

The appellant brought a motion seeking production of inspection orders issued to 102 other properties by the respondent.

The appellant argued these documents were relevant to show that the respondent's inspectors treated a fire alarm acoustics guideline as mandatory.

The tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of inspection orders that specifically dealt with acoustic issues related to fire alarm systems, subject to redactions for privacy.

The Office of the Fire Marshal brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding a fire safety inspection order.

The appellant challenged the inspector's jurisdiction to enforce technical guidelines issued by the Fire Marshal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, adding the Fire Marshal as a party limited to the issue of its jurisdiction to make the guideline and its effect on fire inspections, without the right to argue the merits of the underlying appeal or augment the record.

The applicant sought a declaration that a Fire Marshal guideline regarding fire alarm audibility was invalid and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

The applicant had previously appealed an inspection order to the Fire Marshal and then to the Fire Safety Commission, but sought judicial review before the Commission hearing proceeded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances or true question of jurisdiction that would justify bypassing the ongoing administrative process.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Environmental Review Tribunal's decisions dismissing her application for leave to appeal an Environmental Compliance Approval granted to an adjacent asphalt plant, and refusing to reconsider that dismissal.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Tribunal had carefully considered the applicant's submissions regarding zoning, noise, and past environmental breaches.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The appellant requested a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to establish proper cover over buried fibreglass waste on its property.

The stay was requested on consent to allow the parties additional time for investigations and negotiations to resolve the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the order was not an order to monitor, record or report under s. 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, and that a brief stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3).

The Tribunal granted the consent stay until July 31, 2017.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines as part of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to amend a condition of the approval relating to the protection of Blanding's turtles during construction and maintenance activities, and the appellant proposed to withdraw the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the settlement, finding the amendment to be in the public interest and consistent with the Environmental Protection Act, and dismissed the proceeding.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Little Brown Bat and Blanding's turtle.

In the remedy phase, the Approval Holder proposed mitigation plans to address the Tribunal's previous findings of harm.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the mitigation plans and applied the precautionary principle.

The Tribunal accepted the bat mitigation plan with a modification to extend turbine curtailment to sunrise.

However, the Tribunal found the proposed road restoration measures for Blanding's turtle were novel and unstudied, and therefore removed the turbines associated with those road upgrades from the approval.

The applicants brought motions to review a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for leave to appeal an amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued to an asphalt plant.

The applicants argued the previous panel made material errors of law and fact regarding municipal zoning, noise by-laws, and environmental guidelines.

The Tribunal applied the lower threshold for review and found no material errors of law or fact that would likely have changed the result.

The motions for review were dismissed.

The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.

The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.

The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.

During the remedy phase of an appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellant brought motions to qualify a witness as an expert, admit new documentary evidence, and control the cross-examination of a respondent's witness.

The Tribunal granted the expert qualification in part, admitted some of the new evidence that was not previously obtainable, and dismissed the motion regarding the cross-examination, finding no improper conduct by opposing counsel.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order requiring it to take various actions regarding street sweepings delivered to private properties between 2004 and 2011.

The City sought a stay of the Order pending the appeal.

The Director consented to a stay of the items requiring physical investigations and remedial work, but opposed staying the items requiring the City to share information and conduct a forensic audit to identify affected properties.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found no statutory bar to a stay and a serious issue to be tried.

However, the Tribunal held the City failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to its reputation or from potential litigation.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience and public interest favoured denying the stay for the disputed items to ensure affected property owners receive proper notice and information.

The stay was granted in part on consent and dismissed for the disputed items.

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

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a qualified person to create and implement a Well Management Plan regarding a historic fuel oil spill.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the order to limit the monitoring events to 12 months.

The Tribunal accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order directing that the continuation of the cross-examination of a witness for the approval holder take place before the Tribunal, or alternatively, directing counsel to refrain from further objections.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and the transcript of the cross-examination and dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.