Second opinion from lawyer reluctantly released to public by Huron East Council

HEAT activists turn up the “heat” at Huron East council meeting
By Susan Hundertmark, Mitchell Advocate

Faced with a packed council chamber of 70 people, Huron East council decided to release the advice it received from a second lawyer concerning a municipal bylaw to protect the health, safety and property of local residents living near industrial wind turbines (IWTs). The second opinion from Fred Tranquilli, of Lerners LPP in London, Ont. was originally received in closed session by Huron East council and not released to the public after the meeting. Read article.

7 thoughts on “Second opinion from lawyer reluctantly released to public by Huron East Council

  1. Warning to Councils who are propping up McGuinty’s anti=Democratic GEA! Once this Act has been deemed illegal, and it WILL…………all Councils in Ontario that have NOT represented their electorate’s wishes for “representation on their behalf” will pay a very dear price for their “gutless behaviour”…..their jobs!
    Also Councils who are hiding behind “closed meetings” are going to be investigated for each and every one of those closed meetings as there is a Law called the “Sunshine Law” that makes closed meetings basically illegal! Ignorance by Councils will not be an excuse. OUR day will come come folks!

  2. Obviously more MD’s are needed in Ontario councils. (Mark Davis’)

    Who is going to stand up and fight for the health of the constituents in your municipality?

    The evidence of adverse health effects is overwhelming and while it’s your criminal Ontario gov’t who has written themselves this legislation that doesn’t mean you roll over and take it.

    In what other legislation is it written that you have 15 days to appeal to PROVE harm to human health by a future industrial development? And you have to prove that one particular turbine in that one particular location is going to harm you. How can you do that? That is the way your government is getting away with this.

    In other industry the project developer has to prove it will not harm the people and environment before they make a move, but not in the case of wind turbines. You, as a lay person have to PROVE in a tribunal it is going to harm YOU!
    This is unconscionable and clearly a license to harm, granted by Dalton McGuinty.

    I agree this is going to come to an end very soon and people had better decide if they are going to support and fall with these corrupt bullies or fight for our right to live in our own homes in a healthy and safe environment.

  3. Lawyers cause more confusion than clarification, sometimes. Clearly, any local council can pass a by-law, this is legal not illegal as some lawyers have maintained. If any by-law conflicts with some part OR all of any Ontario statute, that by-law has NO force and effect to the extent it conflicts with statute law. It is also true that because of a conflict of laws, a council may not enforce its by-law(s) that is/are in conflict. They CAN, however, pass such by-laws, provided they do not break criminal law. The GEA maybe a crime, but it is not criminal law.

  4. Oops! it looks like lawyer Fred Tranquilli may have mispoke when he said:

    “In the event the municipality is of the view that wind turbines constitute a risk to the health of its citizens, the municipality must appeal the approval of a renewable energy project to the ERT. The municipality must present convincing evidence of serious harm to humans, plant and animal life, and the natural environment which can be attributed to the wind turbine in order to be successful,” he said in the letter.

    From page 124 of the Environmental Review Tribunal Decision dated July 18, 2011 in the matter of Erickson v. Director, Ministry of the Environment, the Tribunal notes:
    “Section 145.2.1(2) of the EPA places limits on the scope of a REA hearing:
    145.2.1(2) The Tribunal shall review the decision of the Director and shall
    consider only whether engaging in the renewable energy project in
    accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause,
    (a) serious harm to human health; or
    (b) serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal
    life or the natural environment.”

    Note the use of the word “OR”. This is significantly different than Tranquilli’s use of the word “AND”.

    Big (and obvious) mistakes like this are remarkable when a lawyer’s biggest responsibility is to use words appropriately.

    Who’s making the error here? The lawyer, the reporter, or me?

  5. You can’t trust a lawyer, planner or any other “outside council participant” to be “unbiased” as their incomes depend on being “politically correct”!

Leave a Reply

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