Sylvia Davis

The appellants appealed a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

Under the Environmental Protection Act and O. Reg. 359/09, the Tribunal must dispose of the hearing within six months, failing which the approval is deemed confirmed.

Due to delays in completing the evidence and final submissions, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, ordered a 32-day adjournment to allow sufficient time to deliberate and secure a fair and just determination on the merits.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The appellant, residing in the United States, was charged under the Environmental Protection Act for failing to comply with a remediation order.

A summons was served on him by registered mail pursuant to s. 26(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant applied for an order of prohibition, arguing the statute did not authorize service outside Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the plain language of s. 26(3) clearly and unambiguously authorizes service of a summons on an individual residing outside Ontario, including outside Canada.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a remediation order.

The Director sought the adjournment because new hydrogeological reports cast doubt on the assumption that a spill on the appellant's property caused the contamination on a neighbouring property.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing given the new scientific evidence.

Ostrander brought a motion to narrow the scope of the issues and evidence in a remedy hearing concerning a renewable energy approval for a wind turbine project, and to strike portions of the witness statements of two experts called by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature to narrow the scope of the remedy hearing given its broad remedial jurisdiction and the introduction of fresh evidence.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the expert witness statements, finding the proposed evidence relevant to the remedy and responsive to the fresh evidence.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order to retain a consultant for petroleum spill remediation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a teleconference for November 9, 2015, with reasons to follow.

The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the retention of a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impacts on groundwater from a 1990 spill.

Following a preliminary hearing to establish the issues list, several added parties requested the inclusion of new issues.

The Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of the proposed issues, finding no reason to depart from its previous order, but amended one issue regarding the supplier of lake-based water.

The Tribunal also clarified that jurisdictional arguments regarding the addition of another party to the Order were not precluded.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Wawa appealed an amendment to its Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the cessation date for accepting waste at its landfill.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to extend the date to April 16, 2016, allowing time for an environmental assessment for a long-term waste management plan.

The Environmental Review Tribunal reviewed the settlement under Rule 201, found it 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 appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact on groundwater from a 1990 fuel oil spill on his cottage property.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order clarifying the scope of the appeal and organizing the issues to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal identified seven main issues within the scope of the appeal and excluded issues related to remedy or expanding the Director's Order.

The approval holder brought a motion to define the issue to be determined in the remaining portion of the hearing and to strike portions of two witness statements.

The motion was dismissed, with reasons to follow.

The Prince Edward County South Shore Conservancy brought a motion for party status to address the remedy in an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Ostrander Point Wind Park.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the request for party status but granted the alternative request for participant status.

The Tribunal ordered that the Conservancy may participate in motions but may not bring them, with reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

One appellant subsequently proposed to withdraw its appeal with the consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed that appeal.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to an environmental coalition in the remaining appeal and issued procedural directions for the hearing.

The applicant, a resident of the United States, was charged under the Environmental Protection Act with failing to comply with a court order.

A summons was sent to him by registered mail pursuant to s. 26(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The applicant brought an application for an order prohibiting the Provincial Offences Court from continuing the proceeding, arguing that s. 26(3) does not expressly authorize service outside of Ontario or Canada.

The court dismissed the application, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation to find that s. 26(3) implicitly authorizes service of a summons via registered mail upon an individual who resides anywhere outside of Ontario, including outside of Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal granting several respondents leave to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's issuance of Certificates of Approval for the use of alternative fuels, including tires, at a cement plant.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision to grant leave was reasonable.

The Tribunal correctly interpreted the test for leave under s. 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights as requiring a standard of proof lower than a balance of probabilities.

Furthermore, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the Ministry Directors should have considered the Statement of Environmental Values, common law rights, and environmental consistency, and that the project could result in significant harm to the environment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission following the dismissal of a human rights complaint against him.

The respondent was represented by in-house counsel provided by the Regional Municipality of York.

The Tribunal held that while it could not award counsel fees for in-house counsel under the common law rule, it could award disbursements.

Although no actual disbursements were proven, the Tribunal found it had discretion to award nominal costs.

The Tribunal concluded the complaint was not trivial or vexatious, but found the respondent suffered undue hardship due to the Commission's vacillation and reversal of its recommendation to refer the matter to a hearing.

The Tribunal awarded $500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision that interpreted a collective agreement's scope clause to include owner-operators in Cambridge, expanding the bargaining unit beyond the geographic parameters of the original Canada Labour Relations Board certificate.

The Divisional Court applied the pragmatic and functional approach, determining that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was subject to a standard of patent unreasonableness, while her interpretation of the Canada Labour Code was subject to a standard of reasonableness.

The court held that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to recognize a bargaining unit expanded by mutual agreement and that her interpretation was not patently unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The complainant, a probationary police constable, alleged that her coach officer discriminated against and harassed her on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status.

She claimed he created a sexualized work environment through inappropriate comments and told her she had to choose between her family and her career.

The Tribunal found that while the complainant raised a prima facie case on some allegations, the respondent's direct contradictions, the delay in raising the allegations, and the presence of other significant workplace tensions undermined the complainant's credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the complainant failed to establish her case on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to refer her complaint to a Board of Inquiry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission's decision was not patently unreasonable and was supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the Commission was bound by a prior finding of the Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act, noting the issues were entirely different.