Timelines to appeal Ontario environmental orders are strict - miss the deadlines at your peril

Another decision of the Environmental Review Tribunal ("ERT") has confirmed that the process and deadlines for appealing orders made by Provincial Officers are strict; failure to comply with the process and deadlines means that the ERT has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal.

In a July, 2015 decision, the ERT dismissed a proposed appeal on the basis that the proceeding related to matters outside the jurisdiction of the ERT (Rule 119).  A Provincial Officer with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change ("MOECC") had issued an Environmental Protection Act ("EPA") order on May 13, 2015 against the appellant.  On June 3, 2015, the appellant wrote to the ERT to appeal the order.

Under the EPA, a person may seek the review of a Provincial Officer's order to be conducted by the MOECC Director (one step above the Provincial Officer); the request must be made within seven days of the order.  It is only the decision of the Director on the review that can then be appealed if necessary to the ERT.  In the case commenced before the ERT in June, no written request directly to the Director for a Director's review had been made.  There was evidence that the appellant had made an oral request for the review to the Provincial Officer and that the appellant's lawyer had then written to the Provincial Officer to request an "indulgence with respect to the timelines in the Provincial Officer's Order."

Before the ERT, the appellant argued that it had effectively requested a Director's review of the Provincial Officer's Order (through the oral request followed by the written request for an indulgence, although both requests were made to the Provincial Officer).  Alternatively, the appellant argued that the information sheet on the review process provided by the Provincial Officer was vague and misleading and led to an assumption that, if a review was not requested within seven days, the Provincial Officer's Order would be deemed to be confirmed by the Director.  Under the EPA, if a request for a review is made and no decision is issued by the Director within seven days, the Director is deemed to have confirmed the Provincial Officer's Order (and that deemed decision can be appealed to the ERT). 

An appeal to the ERT from the Director's order or decision (deemed or otherwise) must be commenced within 15 days of the date on which the appellant was served with the Director's Order (or the date on which it was deemed to have been made).  There is provision for the ERT to extend the time for appealing, but only where, "in the Tribunal's opinion, it is just to do so because service of the order or decision on the person did not give the person notice of the order or decision."  

Where there was no Director's decision at all, there is no jurisdiction for the ERT to hear an appeal whether it was filed on time or not.  In the recent case, the ERT ruled that the written request for an indulgence cannot be considered a written confirmation of the oral request for a review that was made by the appellant to the Provincial Officer.  The EPA allows for an oral request followed-up by a written confirmation, but the written confirmation must be sent to the Director.  Further, the written follow-up in this case did not include other information required by the EPA (e.g. details of the order to be reviewed).  The ERT concluded that there was no deemed confirmation of the Provincial Officer's Order by the Director and, therefore, there was no Director's order or decision that could be appealed to the ERT.

This decision, like many before it, confirms that the environmental legislation in Ontario (the EPA and the Ontario Water Resources Act) provides very narrow windows of opportunity to appeal orders made by Provincial Officers.  If an order is issued to you and you wish to dispute it, do not delay in seeking legal advice and requesting a review in the manner required by the legislation.  Miss the deadlines and you lose your right to appeal.

Read the decision at: COX FARMS LTD. V. ONTARIO (MOECC).

Do Wind Energy Projects harm the soil? Do pipelines?

On an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a 49-turbine wind farm, the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) considered whether the project would cause harm to soils.  The appellants in the case raised issues including harm to farm animals due to electro-magnetic fields and harm to farming practices.  Lay evidence and expert evidence was called on the issue of harm to soils, including evidence relating to the effect of pipeline projects on farm land and production.

The appellants argued that the soils to be affected by the installation of the wind turbines were unique soils particularly suited to potato farming.  Those soils would be permanently affected by the project, which would result in serious and irreversible harm to land (while other poorer lands were available to accommodate the project). 

The project proponent argued the opposite, putting forward evidence that the soils in question were not the only soils in Ontario well-suited to potato production and that soil restoration would be possible following the project.  The proponent's expert witness, Dr. Gregory Wall, suggested that the soil modification required for a wind turbine is not as drastic as for a pipeline, and testified that farmers, and pipeline companies, have been successfully remediating compacted soil for many years.  He said that on a recent pipeline project, he "expects these lands to return to original crop production levels within ten years," and says, "it is my understanding that landowners affected by pipeline construction are often compensated on this basis."  Dr. Wall also testified that with "major changes" in mitigation techniques, lands affected by pipeline projects are now experiencing "full yields" approximately two-years post-construction.

While Dr. Wall was qualified by the ERT as an expert in "soil science"; it's not clear that he was qualified to provide any opinion on compensation for crop loss (and whether that compensation is adequate).  One might also question the large discrepancy in his evidence about the time it takes to return farm land to full production following a pipeline project. 

The ERT found the amount of land to be affected by the proposed wind project to be relatively small in size, so that a relatively small amount of soil would be disturbed.  The ERT then found that the "amount of soil to be disturbed in order to construct and operate the Project is consistent with the scale of disturbance for roads, farm buildings and other facilities required in the normal use of agricultural lands."  However, the ERT noted that in a different project, it could be that a relatively small disturbance could be considered serious.

The ERT also accepted that the mitigation measures, if applied as described by expert witnesses for the parties responding to the appeals, will be successful in restoring the soils to productive agricultural use and are appropriate to the scale of soil disturbance that will result from the project.  Therefore, the appellants failed to establish that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to soils.

Read the decision at: Bovaird v. MOE.