The Drennans brought a motion to compel Dr. King, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the province of Ontario, to be cross-examined as part of the overall application. They are seeking evidence about the adverse health effects associated with living in close proximity to a wind farm “in anticipation of an appeal of the project’s approval to the Environmental Review Tribunal” (hereinafter referred to as the ERT). They say they need the data for an expert’s report, which they claim would have to be prepared. During the hearing of the motion on November 4, 2011, counsel for the Drennans provided two grounds for which Dr. King should be examined as part of the application:
1) In her role as chief medical officer of Ontario, Dr. King can provide “valuable evidence with respect to the effect” of the non-disclosure clauses; and
2) In her report, the doctor makes reference to a report being prepared by the Ministry of the Environment. The second purpose for summoning her to give evidence was apparently to ask if the report is available now and if so, to get a copy of it from her.Master Joan Haberman, who heard the motion, found that the Drennans failed to meet their onus of providing a reasonable evidentiary record on which she could conclude that Dr. King "probably has any information in the nature of that sought from her or that relates to any of the matters that arise on the pending application." She dismissed the motion and asked the parties to deliver submissions on costs.
Read the decision at: Drennan et al v. 2270573 Ont. Inc. et al.