Tyson Dyck

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted further adjournments of three inter-related appeals concerning Director's Orders for three waste disposal sites in northern Ontario.

The adjournments were granted to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and await the outcome of related civil proceedings regarding an indemnity agreement.

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated a resolution regarding the Margach Waste Disposal Site and submitted a Draft Interim Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Interim Order on consent, which included a stay of the financial assurance requirements and an extension of deadlines for implementing closure plan requirements, finding that the statutory bars to a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The appellants appealed three Director's Orders regarding environmental issues at three waste disposal sites.

The parties negotiated an interim agreement regarding the third order (the Dryden Order), which included a stay of the requirement to provide financial assurance pending the outcome of the appeals.

The Tribunal approved the interim agreement and granted the stay on consent, noting that the statutory bars to a stay did not apply and that the appellants' commitments addressed the Director's concerns.