Breaking News: ERT Motion to Scope Evidence Dismissed

Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Inc. v. Director, Ministry of the Environment
Environmental Review Tribunal panel has issued its decision on the Ministry of Environment’s motion to limit the evidence:- “Motion to Scope Evidence Dismissed“. This means that evidence need only meet the test of relevancy, and not be limited to what comments were submitted to the EBR.  This is a significant victory and means future appellants will not be so severely restricted.

7 thoughts on “Breaking News: ERT Motion to Scope Evidence Dismissed

  1. Should we worry?
    The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) is a surprising mid-town mecca for Faculty of Law graduates working in Toronto. Ten of U of T’s finest live and breathe environmental law issues each day at the Ministry’s Legal Services Branch located at St. Clair and Avenue Road – almost a quarter of the Ministry’s team of forty-six lawyers. These law school grads – interestingly 8 out of the 10 are women – come from a variety of backgrounds, but share a strong environmental consciousness and commitment to their notable public service careers.

    • Yes Free Thinker, we should worry.
      Drum roll, please.
      How many MOE lawyers does it take
      to change a light bulb?
      Forty-six. One to change the bulb and forty-five
      to write the environmental impact statement.

      • I see this group includes Frederika Rotter, made notable in these pages last year for her Marie Antoinette impersonation. Google in the name for details..

  2. This motion came from the proponent, Zephyr. The MOE basically took “no position.” The Tribunal noted that none of the parties could present case law to support a position. Not surprising then that the Tribunal took more thean 2 months to write a decision – a lengthy decision that defines the scope of the “hearings” which are in essence much broader reviews than a court hearing.
    The decision is significant as it indicates the Tribunal’s interest in conducting thorough, unbiased hearings. That is the wider issue here.

    • Harvey Wrightman,
      You say – ‘The Tribunal noted that none of the parties could present case law to
      support a position.’

      So then, is it safe to assume – Ontario is [emphasis added] an experiment –
      under a microscope?
      Maybe we should be looking at international law?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *