Albert Engel

On September 28, 2012, the ERT released its decision dismissing the Summerhaven REA appeal.  The appeal focused on allegations of serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment.  The argument that one bird or bat mortality will always constitute such harm was rejected.  Instead, the ERT acknowledged that it is anticipated that wind energy projects can be approved notwithstanding that some mortalities will occur.  Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant’s evidence was insufficient to meet its onus.

Summerhaven was only the second of eight REA appeals filed to date, to proceed through a full hearing.  The Kent Breeze appeal was the first to be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.  Three others were withdrawn after the ERT required disclosure of medical records and expert evidence to support allegations of serious harm to human health.  Three additional appeals continue to proceed.

The ERT also released reasons for decision on motions in the South Kent and Grand Renewable Energy Park(“GREP”) appeals on September 28, 2012.  In South Kent, the ERT reiterated the requirement that  allegations of harm to health be supported by medical documents.  In GREP, the ERT rejected an appellant’s adjournment request after it had failed to make timely and reasonable efforts to disclose the medical information to which its request was tied.

Albert is an Associate whose practice involves all aspects of Renewable Energy and Environmental Law. He joined Foglers in 2010 after 10 years with Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment. He is a graduate of York University’s joint MES/LLB program and also has a B.Sc. in Biology from York.  He can be reached at aengel@foglers.com or 416-864-7602.

Leave us a note

Wolfe Island wind farm
Image by Peggy Shanks, used under Creative Commons Licensing

On July 9, 2012, the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) released reasons for its decisions on several motions brought in the Summerhaven Renewable Energy Approval (REA) hearing. The Summerhaven REA hearing is dealing with two appeals of an REA issued on March 16, 2012 for a 58 turbine wind facility with a total name plate capacity of 131.04 MW.

The ERT’s decision contains the following important guidance for future REA appeals:

1) The ERT confirmed its finding in Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), that medical documents related to health claims made by proposed lay witnesses are relevant in an REA appeal where appellants allege health effects;

2) The ERT confirmed that any harm that may be caused by exceedances of the sound emission limits in an REA is irrelevant to an REA appeal because in its consideration of whether a project as approved “will cause” serious harm, the ERT must assume that the project will be operating within the sound emission level limits set out in the REA;

3) The ERT declined to order blanket confidentiality over all medical records disclosed in an REA appeal, opting instead to weigh the relevant interests in disclosure versus confidentiality on a document by document basis; and

4) The ERT confirmed its conclusion in Erickson v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), that evidence respecting other wind turbine projects may be relevant in an REA appeal only if the evidence is used as an input into evidence concerning the predicted effects of the project under appeal.

On July 26, 2012, the ERT released reasons for its decision of June 8, 2012 to dismiss a motion by an REA appellant to adjourn the Conestogo REA hearing until the Summerhaven REA hearing is concluded. The appellant in both hearings was represented by the same lawyer and proposed to call the same witnesses in both hearings. As such the appellant in the Conestogo REA hearing argued that depending on the ERT’s findings in the Summerhaven REA, the Conestogo REA may be unnecessary and unnecessarily expose its proposed witnesses to “Litigation Stress Syndrome“. The ERT found that the importance of the statutory scheme in expediting REA appeals and the prejudice that may be suffered by refusing to adjourn are the key factors to be balanced. The ERT balanced these factors and ultimately determined that it would not be consistent with the public interest in an expedited process to grant the adjournment.

Albert is an Associate whose practice involves all aspects of Renewable Energy and Environmental Law. He joined Foglers in 2010 after 10 years with Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment. He is a graduate of York University’s joint MES/LLB program and also has a B.Sc. in Biology from York.  He can be reached at aengel@foglers.com or 416-864-7602.

Leave us a note

On April 30, 2012, Justice of the Peace Patricia Hodgins dismissed a charge against a former City of St. Thomas employee that alleged that the employee, “being the operating authority” of a drinking water system where there was an adverse water quality incident, failed to re-sample and test as soon as reasonably possible, contrary to section 17-6 of Schedule 17 of Regulation 170/03 as amended, made under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 as amended.

Both the former employee and the City were intially charged with the offence, but the MOE prosecutor withdrew the charge against the City on November 2, 2011. The prosecutor proceeded to trial against the former employee on January 20, 23 and 24, 2012. The prosecutor closed her case on January 24, 2012 after providing the court with evidence that the former employee was the overall responsible operator of the drinking water system and that the City was the operating authority. The defence brought a motion for non-suit at the close of the prosecution’s case on January 24, 2012, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish that the former employee was the operating authority as charged. The prosecutor responded to the motion on April 23, 2012 and argued that the former employee was charged as a party to the offence pursuant to s.77 of the Provincial Offences Act. On April 30, 2012, the court dismissed the prosecutor’s arguments in a carefully reasoned decision allowing the non-suit motion and dismissing the charge.

Albert is an Associate whose practice involves all aspects of Renewable Energy and Environmental Law. He joined Foglers in 2010 after 10 years with Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment. He is a graduate of York University’s joint MES/LLB program and also has a B.Sc. in Biology from York.  He can be reached at aengel@foglers.com or 416-864-7602.

Leave us a note

Renewable Energy Approval Upheld in Court: Another Judicial Review Dismissed

April 26, 2012 Albert Engel

On Monday April 24, 2012, the Divisional Court dismissed a judicial review brought by Preserve Mapleton Incorporated (PMI) against the Director of the Ministry of the Environment over a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued to Conestogo Wind, LP. In dismissing the case, the Court found that PMI failed to meet the well-established test for standing [...]

Read the full article →

Wind Energy updates

April 5, 2012 Albert Engel

MOE defended issuance of REA to Conestogo in PMI Judicial Review at Divisional Court on Monday, April 2, 2012. Justices Cunningham, Crane and Swinton of Ontario’s Divisional Court heard Preserve Mapleton Incorporated’s (“PMI”) application for Judicial Review of the Conestogo Wind Energy Centre (“Conestogo”) Renewable Energy Approval (“REA”). Conestogo is a 22.9MW wind facility consisting [...]

Read the full article →

Two-Year FIT Review Report Highlights

March 26, 2012 Albert Engel

The Government of Ontario released its Two-Year FIT Review Report late last week. Overall, the recommendations contained in the Review are to: 1- Continue a commitment to clean energy 2- Streamline processes and create jobs 3- Encourage greater community and Aboriginal participation 4- Improve municipal engagement 5- Reduce price to reflect lower costs 6- Expand [...]

Read the full article →

ERT Confirms Medical Records Highly Relevant in REA Hearings

March 2, 2012 Albert Engel

In Reasons for Decision on a motion brought in Ontario’s second REA hearing released on February 29, 2012, the ERT confirmed that medical records of an REA Appellant’s lay witnesses who claim serious health effects due to proximity to wind turbines would appear to be highly relevant to an REA Appellant’s case. The ERT further [...]

Read the full article →

ERT releases 3 orders regarding nature of REA hearings

March 1, 2012 Albert Engel

*UPDATED* At the start of the hearing of the motions on March 1, 2012 the Appellant announced that it wished to withdraw its appeal. All parties consented to the withdrawal of the appeal. Ontario’s second REA hearing alleging “serious harm to human health” has seen its fair share of motions attempting to define the nature [...]

Read the full article →

ERT denies Leave to Appeal approval of new Waste Transfer Facility at Ottawa Landfill

February 3, 2012 Albert Engel

On February 1, 2012, a three-member panel of the Environmental Review Tribunal issued its decision in Iburg v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, dismissing applications for EBR leave to appeal approval of the operation of a new waste transfer/processing facility at the landfill site located on Carp Road in the City of Ottawa. The wastetransfer/processing [...]

Read the full article →

Three member Tribunal panel to rule on nature of REA appeals

December 22, 2011 Albert Engel

Thursday, a three-member panel of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) had a hearing on two significant preliminary motions for renewable energy approvals (REAs). The Ministry of the Environment brought a motion to dismiss a new appeal in entirety on the basis that the notice of appeal failed to provide the minimum level of detail required [...]

Read the full article →