Grain Farmers of Ontario v. MOECC decision now available

Grain Farmers of Ontario ("GFO") has now posted a copy of the decision dismissing its challenge of Ontario's new neonicotinoid regulations at its website: 2015 ONSC 6581. GFO alleged that the regulations in their current form would cause irreparable harm to Ontario corn and grain farmers, and asked for a stay of the regulations until May, 2016 or "such time as the requirements of the Regulation can be met."  Justice S.A.Q. Akhtar of the Superior Court heard the case and declined to order a stay.  He also allowed the cross-motion by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change ("MOECC") ruled that GFO's application disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The application was dismissed on that basis.

On review of the GFO application, Justice Akhtar was "of the view that the application is concerned with the economic interests of the affected farmers rather than any property rights.  Prior to the Regulation, the farmers did not have an unrestricted right to use their lands as they wished but were subject to a highly regulated pesticide regime. ... If there is no constitutional challenge or allegation of ultra vires, then what is GFO's aim in making the application? ... In my view, GFO is not asking for a determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of the Regulation but a re-writing of that Regulation in a manner that would permit the effects of the Regulation to be delayed to its advantage.  It is not the job of this court to pronounce on the efficacy or wisdom of government policy absent the aforementioned constitutional or jurisdictional challenges, neither of which are made here...".

Thankfully for GFO, the MOECC did not seek any costs of the court proceeding against GFO (though GFO will most likely have incurred its own legal costs in the matter).  According to its website, GFO is evaluating its options and says that it has not conceded on this matter.

MOE Court Bulletin: Brantford Biosolids Management Company fined $105,000 for Ontario Water Resources Act Violations

	NEWS
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

Brantford Biosolids Management Company fined $105,000 for Ontario Water Resources Act Violations

April 2, 2015 9:00 A.M.

Simcoe - Biosolids management company Wessuc Inc. (Wessuc) was fined $105,000 for discharging sewage biosolids into a watercourse that may impair the quality of the water, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA).

Wessuc is located in Brantford and operates throughout southern Ontario. The company is primarily involved with the land application of municipal biosolids.

On October 11, 2011, a Non-Agricultural Source Materials (NASM) Plan was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), for the land application of sewage biosolids to a Simcoe farm property on Concession 12. On April 27, 2012, the MOECC received notification from Wessuc that the sewage biosolid application would occur at the site, in accordance with the NASM Plan, between April 28 and May 5, 2012.

On April 30, 2012 and on May 2, 2012, ministry staff conducted sewage biosolid field inspections. During the May 2, 2012 inspection, Ministry staff observed a discharge of a dark-coloured liquid from the field's drainage tile, which entered a stream heading south through a road culvert, and flowed downstream onto a property south of the roadway. An assessment of effluent samples determined that the application of liquid biosolids resulted in discharge of biosolids to an unnamed tributary of Black Creek which impaired the quality of water in the creek.

Wessuc responded to the incident and cleaned up the spilled material at the Simcoe farm property. A Provincial Officer's Order was issued by the ministry to Wessuc to prevent the reoccurance of a similar event during the application of sewage biosolids on tile drained fields in the future.

The company was fined $105,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $26,250 and was given one year to pay the fine.

Members of the media: Kate Jordan Communications Branch (416) 314-6666 Contact information for the general public: 1-800-565-4923

Available Online Disponible en Français

Court dismisses UST contamination claim where previous owners plead ignorance

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment to the Defendants in a property contamination claim.  The Plaintiff in the case purchased a property and then discovered significant environmental contamination that it was forced to remediate.  The Defendants said they knew nothing of the contamination. 

The property deal was completed in June, 2001.  Over two years later, in September, 2003, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) received a drinking water complaint about wells located near the property.  It was determined that gasoline had leaked from underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property, and the Plaintiff was ordered by the MOE to remediate the property at significant cost.

The Defendants denied any knowledge that the property contained USTs, and denied the existence of any facts from which they ought reasonably to have understood there to be USTs.  They also denied the existence of any environmental contamination of the property during their period of ownership (1991 to 2001).

This was a motion for summary judgment in which the Plaintiffs had to demonstrate that there were genuine issues requiring a trial - otherwise the action would be dismissed on a summary basis without a trial.  The Plaintiff suggested that there were a number of issues requiring trial: 1) whether the property was in compliance with all laws at the time it was sold (as required by the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale); 2) the state of the Defendants' knowledge about the USTs and any leaks; 3) the strict liability regime imposed by Section 99 of the Environmental Protection Act; and, 4) the effect of spoliation of evidence, given that the Defendants had destroyed business records.

The Court considered these issues and concluded: 1) there is no evidence that the property was not in compliance with environmental laws at the date of sale - there was no evidence to show that the contamination pre-dated the sale of the property (no expert report was provided); 2) there was virtually no evidence on which a finding could be made that the Defendants knew about the USTs when the property was sold; 3) Section 99 of the EPA could not be relied upon since there was evidence to show, even on a balance of probabilities, that the Defendants had ownership or control of the pollutant immediately before the first discharge (which is a prerequisite to liability under that section of the Act); and, 4) the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court that the business records destroyed would be of relevance to the claim.

Read the decision at: Gagnon & Associates Inc. v. Genier et. al.

Ontario MOE: Company fined $50,000 for manure discharge

From the MOE Court Bulletin:

Warwick Company Fined $50,000 for Discharging Manure into Woods Creek

Sarnia – A Warwick company was fined $50,000 for discharging a mixture of cow manure and leachate into Woods Creek that could have impaired the creek’s water quality, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act.

“Polluters should be aware that the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch will vigorously pursue charges when our environmental laws are broken”, Environment Minister Jim Bradley.

Eusi Farms Ltd. operates a beef feed lot located on Rawlings Road in the Municipality of Lambton Shores where approximately 3,000 cattle are housed. Manure is stored on site until applied as a nutrient to 14 other Eusi farms.

On November 19, 2011, a resident of Lambton Shores reported to the ministry that Woods Creek was black and smelled like manure. The caller also reported seeing dead fish, crayfish and several frogs in the creek. The Municipality of Lambton Shores staff attended the site and reported a strong odour, discoloured water and dead fish.

An inspection conducted by ministry staff revealed the source of the contamination in the creek was a leaking manure pit located at the Eusi Farms about seven kilometres upstream of Lake Huron.

Ministry staff remained at the site until the leak was fixed and clean-up work completed. .

Eusi Farms Ltd. was fined $50,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $12,500 and was given 60 days to pay the fine.

Ontario MOE: Hog Farm Fined $4,000 for having no nutrient management strategy and plan

From the MOE Court Bulletin:

Hog Farm Fined $4,000 for Nutrient Management Violations

Cornwall – A hog farm was fined $4,000 for operating an agricultural farm without the required nutrient management strategy, contrary to the Nutrient Management Act.

“Charges and convictions remind us all that we need to take care not to damage the environment as we go about our business”, Environment Minister Jim Bradley.

6093744 Canada Inc. owns and operates a pork agricultural operation located on County Road 18 in the Township of South Dundas. In 2004, the company added two hog barns and a manure storage lagoon in addition to the two barns already on the property.

In October 2003, a letter was sent by a Ministry of Agriculture and Food engineer advising the company that its intention to build two additional barns to house about 5,000 feeder hogs on the farm would result in the farm being classified as generating over 300 nutrient units and therefore would be subject to the Nutrient Management Act on July 1, 2005. The letter further indicated that a plan had to be submitted at least two months prior to this date for approval.

In June 2012, in response to a complaint, a provincial officer of the ministry conducted an inspection at the company’s farm. During the inspection, the officer observed that the company had not applied for or received an approved Nutrient Management Strategy and Plan. A subsequent investigation determined that pork operation involved about 5,000 feeder hogs that would generate over 300 nutrient units annually and therefore an approved strategy and plan was required and was not obtained.

The company was fined $4,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $1,000 and was given six months to pay the fine.

Ontario: Draft Guide - Soil Management - A Guide for Best Management Practices

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has released a draft best management practice guide concerning soil management for public review and comment until January 18, 2013.  The MOE explains on the entry in the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry:

Every day, in Ontario, large amounts of soil are being moved to support development activities. This excess soil is mainly generated by excavation during construction and redevelopment activities, and often cannot be reused at the site of generation. Excess soil must be managed in a safe and sustainable manner in order to maintain a healthy economy while protecting the environment.

The ministry encourages the reuse of excess soil, where appropriate, provided that the use does not have a potential to cause adverse effect on human health and the environment, or impairment of water quality, as described under the ministry’s Acts and Regulations. It is the responsibility of all parties who generate, haul or receive excess soil to ensure that it is being managed in an environmentally sound manner in accordance with all regulatory requirements. The ministry would like to clarify some best management practices when engaging in soil management activities.

The proposed guidance document “Soil Management – A Guide for Best Management Practices” is attached for your review and comment. This proposed Best Management Practices guide is intended to provide essential guidance on many aspects of soil management. Please provide comments on the proposed guidance document to support safe, sustainable soil movement and reuse. The ministry will evaluate all comments received to determine if future actions for soil management are required.

The proposed document would provide guidance for the management of excess soils generated from construction and redevelopment projects with a focus on those soils generated from brownfields redevelopment activities taken to commercial fill operations. While the guidance may be applicable to a wide variety of soil management projects, they are not intended to apply to small scale construction such as maintenance and repair activities or construction activities at single-dwelling residential properties based on the volumes generated.

The Soil Management - A Guide for Best Management Practices document only addresses the management of soil (soil as defined by Ontario Regulation 153/04 (O. Reg. 153/04)). The document provides guidance on how to handle excess soil from a source site where it is generated, through to the transportation of the excess soil to a site where the soil can be reused for a beneficial purpose, such as site alterations, re-grading, or filling in excavations, or to soil stockpiling sites for temporary storage. These activities must meet any relevant regulatory requirements and should ensure that there is no adverse effect.

This proposed guidance document would promote some of the best practices that are currently being exercised by those who actively manage excess soil across the province. The proposed guidance is intended to assist municipalities and conservation authorities in their oversight of fill operations through their existing permitting regimes. This proposed guidance will help to provide consistency across the province in expectations for excess soil management.
Soil Management – A Guide for Best Management Practices currently focuses on five key areas of interest:

• Soil reuse at civil construction and other commercial development activities;
• Soil generation at source sites, assessment and management;
• Soil acceptance at receiving sites, assessment and management;
• Procurement practices for the removal and management of excess soils;
• Temporary Soil Banking (soil stockpiling).

As part of the Best Management Practices document, the ministry is not intending to introduce new standards that apply to soil movement. The ministry does however anticipate supporting industry in the development of complementary industry code of practices, such as guidance for Qualified Persons for the development of appropriate soil standards for receiving sites.

The ministry encourages all comments and input into the proposed guidance document. The ministry is looking for particular input into what terms within the document require further definition and recommendations on how to define terms within the document, such as “large-scale”.

A copy of the draft guide is available at: For Consultation - Soil Management - A Guide for Best Management Practices. 

MOE seeking accreditation; public can call in to comment

Have concerns about the MOE Investigations and Enforcement Branch?

The Investigations and Enforcement Branch (IEB) of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is seeking an accreditation by the Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).  CALEA is an international enforcement standards organization based in Virginia, USA that accredits agencies whose systems and directives meet internationally recognized standards for delivering service.

An assessment of the IEB's system and directives against these standards will be evaluated in an onsite assessement conducted between August 12 and August 15, 2012.  During the onsite assessment, assessors will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the IEB's accreditation.  COMMENTS WILL BE RECEIVED IN A PUBLIC CALL-IN SESSION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 13, 2012.  Members of the public and organizations can comment by calling 1-416-326-4426 between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. on August 13.  Callers will be limited to 10 minutes and must address accreditation issues.

More information is available at: EBR Notice.

Privacy Commissioner deals with concerns about disclosure of contamination data

The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner has recently issued a decision upholding an earlier decision by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to release partial records related to an ongoing contamination situation in Cambridge, Ontario.  According to the decision, trichloroethylene (TCE) leaked from a facility into neighbouring properties, contaminated local groundwater and may have posed a health hazard due to the movement of contaminant vapours from the groundwater into the basements of nearby homes.

The MOE received a request for access to information about the contamination, including all test results and reports on remediation in the possession of the MOE.  A decision was made to disclose some of the documents and information requested, but without any homeowner names except where a release had been provided.  At least one homeowner challenged the decision, as did the company responsible for the contamination and clean-up. 

The Commissioner declined to prevent the disclosure of property information on the basis that it was personal information.  The argument was made that property identification information could be used to obtain the names of property owners and was, therefore, personal information.  The Commissioner disagreed:

I also wanted to address the appellant and affected person’s arguments that the individual homeowners would be identifiable from a disclosure of their addresses or other location information using publicly available resources. The fact that the names of individual owners could be determined by a search in the registry office or elsewhere does not convert the municipal address from information about a property to personal information. In Order PO-1847, former Adjudicator Katherine Laird noted that, in the context of a discussion about correspondence concerning possible land use, “…where records are about a property, and not about an identifiable individual, the records may be disclosed, with appropriate severances, notwithstanding the possibility that the owners of the property may be identifiable through searches in land registration records and/or municipal assessment rolls.”

The Commissioner also rejected the argument that disclosure of the information would result in undue financial loss for the homeowners involved:

I accept that the stigma of environmental contamination can result in the lowering of property values and may affect the ability of property owners to sell their properties in the free market. However, in this case, I find that the appellant has not provided me with detailed and convincing evidence that the disclosure of these records could reasonably result in undue loss to the homeowners. Firstly, as the ministry notes, the media has already reported of the contamination in the community. The records contain these newspaper reports. Secondly, from my review of the records, I find that there has already been some public disclosure of the test results to the homeowners and businesses in the community. And finally, I agree with the ministry’s representations that the information in the records including test results and remediation reports, provide a clearer picture of those properties that have been properly remediated to ministry standards. I am not persuaded that disclosure of these records would result in undue loss to the homeowners in the community.

Read the full decision at: Ontario (Environment) (Re).

When innocent parties are held liable for environmental contamination

The Ontario Divisional Court has recently released a decision affirming the authority of the Ministry of the Environment to hold a party liable for clean up of contamination even though that party was not at fault.  As the Court explained: "The appeal centres on the question of what are the appropriate considerations in making a clean-up order under the Act, against an owner of contaminated land who had no responsibility whatsoever for the contamination."

Several hundred litres of furnace oil had leaked from the basement of a privately owned property located in the City of Kawartha Lakes.  The oil seeped onto property that the City owned and from there had the potential to adversely affect Sturgeon Lake. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) ordered the private property owners to remediate the damage. The owners, who had limited financial resources, made an insurance claim, but their insurance funds ran out before remediation could be completed on the City property. The MOE then ordered the City to clean up the contamination on its property and to prevent discharge of the contaminant from its property.

The City appealed the order to the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), which refused to allow the City to call evidence directed at proving the City's innocence and determining who was actually at fault for the contamination.  The Divisional Court upheld this decision of the ERT, finding that earlier decisions of the ERT related to fairness (e.g. it would not be fair to hold an innocent party responsible for the costs of clean up) had been supplanted in large part by the MOE Compliance Policy. 

The Compliance Policy states that the "fact that an owner of a contaminated site may have purchased it without notice of the presence of contamination is irrelevant to the purpose of the Ministry legislation [the Environmental Protection Act] and generally will not be considered by the statutory decision-maker to be grounds for relieving that owner from liability under a control document."  According to Section 2 of the Policy, an innocent or "victimized" owner will not be relieved of liability.  If an exceptional or unusual circumstance existed, the timing and content of such an order could be varied - but not whether the order should be issued in the first place. 

The Divisional Court also rejected the argument of the City that the ERT's decision violated the "polluter pays" principle and, therefore, that the decision could not stand.  The Court instead pointed to Section 157.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, which it says "can be accurately described as an 'owner pays' mechanism".  The section makes no reference to fault.  It gives the provincial officer the discretion to make an order against an owner if the officer reasonably believes that the order is necessary or advisable to protect the environment.  The ERT had found that the MOE had acted reasonably in making the order against the City, and the Divisional Court agreed.

Read the decision at: The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes v. Director, Ministry of the Environment.

Farm land exterminator fined $20,000 over pesticide use

MOE Press Release:

WALKERTON – On March 14, 2012, Kenneth Schiestel pleaded guilty to one violation under the Pesticides Act for the improper use of a pesticide causing harm or discomfort to a person.  The Court heard that Mr. Schiestel is a licensed exterminator with a retail company that specializes in pesticide applications to farm lands throughout the Grey and Bruce Counties. In 2010, the ministry received a phone call to report that Mr. Schiestel had commenced spraying pesticide on a field while another person was standing nearby. The spray plume of the pesticide came in contact with the nearby individual who developed a skin rash shortly thereafter. The ministry attended the site and collected samples.

Mr. Schiestel was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  Kenneth Schiestel was fined $20,000 plus the victim fine surcharge, and was given six months to pay the fine.

Court of Appeal upholds conviction under EPA for rock debris

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a split decision 2-1, has upheld the conviction of a highway construction subcontractor under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) related to rock debris that travelled 90 metres beyond the controlled blasting area.  The "fly-rock" landed on a house and vehicle on neighbouring private property causing damage.  The blasting company did not report the debris and was subsequently charged with failing to report the discharge of a contaminant into the environment contrary to Section 15(1) of the EPA. 

The duty to report depended on whether there had been a discharge within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the EPA.  Section 14(1) prohibits a discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect.  "Adverse effect" is a defined term in the Act, and the majority of the Court of Appeal panel found that for the harms listed in subparagraphs (b) to (h), there is no requirement that there necessarily be harm to the environment (i.e. there can be an adverse effect for the purposes of Section 14(1) without harm to the environment).  On this basis, although the "fly-rock" caused no apparent harm to the environment, the conviction was upheld.

Justice Robert Blair wrote a dissenting opinion.  His view was that there could be no "adverse effect" without either non-trivial harm or impairment of the natural environment.  As it was conceded that the "fly-rock" had no more than a trivial or minor impact on the natural environment, Justice Blair would have allowed the appeal.

Read the decision at: Ontario (Environment) v. Castonguay Blasting Ltd.

$16,000 Fine for Keeping Cattle and Manure in Hay Storage Structure

Ontario Ministry of the Environment Press Release:

Thames Sales Yard Ltd And Thomas Vanrabaeys Fined $16,000 For Manure Management Violations

LONDON - On November 17, 2011, Thames Sales Yard Ltd. was convicted of two violations under the Nutrient Management Act for keeping cattle and manure in a structure constructed for hay storage and failing to comply with a Provincial Officer’s Order.

The Court heard that the company raises and sells beef cattle at a facility located in Thamesville.  Mr. Vanrabaeys is the controlling authority of the company. In 2009, the company was issued a building permit by the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for hay storage. A public complaint of cattle being housed in the new structure initiated an inspection of the company’s facilities by the ministry. A Provincial Officer’s Order was issued by the ministry to the company and Mr. Vanrabaeys regarding run-off management at two locations and the disposition of a well at a third location. The order was issued to ensure that qualified persons address the issues of run-off management from manure and food storage facilities and the repair of a well to protect the environment and the quality of the surface and ground water. The company failed to comply by the required dates, and the required reports were not submitted to the ministry.

The company and Mr. Vanrabaeys were charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The company was fined a total of $16,000 plus victim fine surcharges. It was given 45 days to pay the fines.

MOE moving more industries into Environmental Activity and Sector Registry

From the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry:

The Ministry of the Environment has recently implemented an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) that allows businesses to register certain activities with the Ministry (rather than seeking an Environmental Compliance Approval, formerly known as a Certificate of Approval). The EASR is a public, web-based system where people engaging in selected activities will be required to register the activity and to meet eligibility and operating requirements set out in regulation, rather than seeking an approval through the normal application submission and review process. These requirements could be comprised of, but not limited to, design requirements, pollution control measures and best management practices. The Ministry will enforce compliance with the EASR regulation according to our compliance strategy, as it does for all its approvals today.

To date, activities relating to the following have been added to the registry: automotive refinishing (autobody shop spray booths), comfort heating systems and stand-by power systems. Registry requirements for these activities/sectors are described in Ontario Regulation 245/11 under the Environmental Protection Act.

As part of the Ministry’s ongoing work to implement a new environmental approvals program, additional activities and sectors are being evaluated for their potential inclusion on the EASR. This work involves comprehensive technical analysis and two periods of public consultation to ensure registry activities are developed in a transparent and science-based manner and that the resulting registry rules are protective of the environment.

To encourage localized generation from smaller, cleaner sources of electricity and community-based renewable energy facilities, the Ministry is proposing to allow specific small scale renewable energy projects to register on the EASR. The proposed EASR eligibility criteria for small scale renewable energy facilities are designed to eliminate potential impacts to the environment through facility design and siting restrictions.

Process for Developing Registry Regulations

When developing a regulation to include a new activity/sector on the EASR, the Ministry undertakes a comprehensive technical analysis and consultation process. This process contains the following steps:

1. Detailed scoping and technical assessment of activity/sector
   
   • Engineering analysis
   • Risk evaluation and modelling
   • Jurisdictional review
   • Evaluation of local concerns/complaints and past administrative non-compliance with requirement to obtain an approval
2. Development of draft registry requirements
   
3. Public consultation on a technical report describing draft requirements (the reports included in this posting)
   
4. Development of a draft regulation
   
5. Public consultation on a draft regulation
   
6. Finalizing of regulation and implementation

It is important to note that, while Steps 3 and 5 specifically provide for broad public input through comment on postings on the Environmental and Regulatory Registries, the Ministry is also engaging at various levels with relevant interested groups (industry, associations, Aboriginal organizations/communities and technical specialists).

The following technical reports summarize the proposed rationale for moving specific activities and sectors from the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) process to the registration process.

1. Technical Report on Proposed Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) Requirements: Small Ground-Mounted Solar
2. Technical Report on Proposed Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) Requirements: On-Farm Anaerobic Digestion
3. Technical Report on Proposed Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) Requirements: Landfill Gas Electricity Generation

This proposal has been posted for a 45 day public review and comment period starting April 02, 2012. Comments or questions can be submitted by May 17, 2012 to:

Chris Goode
Senior Advisor
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Programs Division
Modernization of Approvals Project
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 4
Toronto Ontario  M4V 1P5
Phone: (416) 325-7893

Comments can be submitted on-line at: Comments.

All comments received prior to May 17, 2012 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Ministry of the Environment if they are submitted in writing or electronically using the form provided in this notice and reference EBR Registry number 011-5695.

Ontario hog farmer's fine and jail sentence stayed pending appeal

A judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has stayed the sentence handed down to an Oxford County farmer ealier this month pending an appeal.  The farmer was convicted on charges related to a manure spill (see previous post).

Read about the stay decision at: betterfarming.com.

Van Boekel Hog Farms Fined $345,000 For Manure Spills

WOODSTOCK – On January 12, 2012, Eric and Yvonne Van Boekel, Van Boekel Hog Farms Inc. and Van Boekel Holdings Inc. were fined a total of $345,000 for pig manure spills that resulted in adverse effects to residents and impairment of water quality. Mr. Van Boekel also received 30 days of jail time.

The Court heard that the companies own two hog farms in Oxford County and that the ministry responded to complaints of pig manure spills on both farms. The ministry observed significant spills and noted that the spills had discharged into the Thames River and Sweets Creek. The ministry also determined that the flow manure application system that was being used to spread manure on fields was not being operated in accordance with the Nutrient Management Act.

The companies and the Van Boekels were charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  The companies and the Van Boekels were fined a total of $345,000 plus victim fine surcharges (25% surcharge). Mr. Van Boekel also received 30 days jail time concurrent to be served on weekends plus two years probation.

Read the Better Farming story on the case at: Oxford farmer slapped with huge fine, jail time.

MOE seeking comment on new "Guide to Applying for an Environmental Compliance Approval"

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is seeking public comments on a draft "Guide to Applying for an Environmental Compliance Approval", designed to assist an applicant in completing the application form for the approval.  The Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) replaces what was formerly known as a "Certificate of Approval" (CoA).  Applicants for approval can now apply for an ECA for multiple activities and projects in multiple media under a single ECA application. 

The draft Guide can be reviewed at: Draft ECA Application Guide.  Public comments on the draft guide are being accepted until April 10, 2012.  Comments are to be directed to:

Nihar Bhatt
Senior Engineer
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Programs Division
Modernization of Approvals Project
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 4
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1P5
Phone: (416) 325-7560
Fax: (416) 325-7962

Comments can also be submitted on-line using the form at the following link: Comments.

MOE looks at extending Environmental Activity and Sector Registry to additional industries

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has recently implemented an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) that allows businesses to register certain activities with the Ministry. The EASR is a public, web-based system where people engaging in selected activities will be required to register the activity and to meet eligibility and operating requirements set out in regulation rather than seeking an approval through the normal application submission and review process (formerly known as Certificates of Approval - now known as Environmental Compliance Approvals). These requirements could be comprised of, but not limited to, design requirements, pollution control measures and best management practices. The Ministry will enforce compliance with the EASR regulation according to its compliance strategy.

To date, activities relating to the following have been added to the registry: automotive refinishing (autobody shop spray booths), heating systems and stand-by power systems. Registry requirements for these activities/sectors are described in O. Reg. 245/11 (under the Environmental Protection Act).   The following additional industries are being reviewed for possible inclusion in the EASR program:

• Waste collection and transportation;
• Ready-mix concrete manufacturing;
• Lithographic, Screen and Digital Printing;
• Concrete Product Manufacturing.

The proposal to expand the EASR program has been posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry for public comment starting January 11, 2012.  Comments are being received until February 25, 2012 and must be submitted to:

Gregory Zimmer
Senior Program Advisor
Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Programs Division
Modernization of Approvals Project
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 4
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1P5
Phone: (416) 325-7893

It is also possible to submit comments on-line at: Comments.

Ministry of the Environment News Release: $52,500 fine for constructing wells without licence

Lloyd Trodden Fined $52,500 For Constructing Wells Without A License

BRACEBRIDGE – On July 19, 2011, Lloyd Trodden pleaded guilty to seven violations under the Ontario Water Resources Act in relation to the construction of wells without a well contractor license.  In February 2009, the ministry received a complaint from a well owner that a newly constructed well was contaminated with gasoline. An inspection by ministry officials confirmed that the drinking water well was contaminated with a petroleum product. The inspection process revealed that Mr. Trodden constructed the well and that he did not possess a valid well contractor license to construct wells in Ontario.  Following an investigation, a number of additional wells were discovered that had been constructed by Mr. Trodden.  A ministry record search indicated that Mr. Trodden did not have a valid Well Contractor Licence when the wells were being constructed.

Mr. Trodden was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined a total of $52,500 plus victim fine surcharges and given one year to pay the fine.

Ministry of the Environment News Release: $4,000 fine for selling pesticides without licence

Justin Vanderheide Fined $4,000 For Selling Pesticides Without A Licence

CAYUGA – On July 8, 2011, Justin VanDerheide was convicted on three violations under the Pesticides Act for offering the sale of a pesticide and selling a pesticide without a vendor’s licence.  The Court heard that Mr. VanDerheide resides in Dunnville, Haldimand County.  In November 2010, the ministry found an advertisement in a trade publication newspaper, dated offering Weed-Master 41 and Wiseup glyph sate for sale. Similar advertisements were also found on an advertising website.  The advertisements in the newspaper and on the website were later determined to belong to Mr. VanDerheide. Weed-Master 41 is a pesticide that requires a licence to sell.  A search of ministry records determined that Mr. VanDerheide did not possess a vendor’s licence.

Mr. VanDerheide was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined 4,000 plus a victim fine surcharges and was given 15 days to pay the fine.

Ministry of the Environment: $48,000 fine levied for manure discharge

Bernardus Johannes Joseph Debeer Fined $48,000 For Manure Discharge

THUNDER BAY– On August 8, 2011, Bernardus Johannes Joseph DeBeer pleaded guilty to one violation under the Ontario Water Resources Act for a discharge of corn silage and manure into the Curry Municipal Drain and Reynolds Creek.

The Court heard that Mr. DeBeer is the president of a dairy and veal farm in the Municipality of South-West Oxford, Ontario.  In 2009, the ministry received a report of dead fish in Reynolds Creek.  The ministry conducted sampling on the farm and observed that run-off from the corn silage was entering catch basins. Mr. DeBeer confirmed that he had been receiving corn silage for more than a week and also confirmed that the catch basins were connected to the Curry municipal drain which flowed into Reynolds Creek.

Mr. DeBeer was charged following an investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.  He was fined $48,000 plus a victim fine surcharge and was given six months to pay the fine.