Highest court in Ontario declines to hear wind appeal, farm families disappointed

SHAWN DRENNANFor Immediate Release
May 29, 2015

On May 28, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied leave to appeal to the Drennans, Dixons, Ryans, and the Kroeplins, in respect of their Charter Challenge to the current legislation for the approval of wind turbine projects.

These farm families had been seeking the opportunity to argue that the Environmental Protection Act provisions approving renewable energy projects exposes them to a reasonable prospect of serious harm to their health and therefore does not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Health Canada Study Summary Results released on November 6, 2014, showed an association between wind turbine noise and annoyance, and an association between wind turbine noise annoyance and sleep disturbances, migraines, tinnitus, dizziness, and measured blood pressure and hair cortisol.

Shawn Drennan commented on the Court of Appeal’s decision: “We are disappointed with the Court’s decision not to hear our case. No one has been able to tell us that the turbines are safe.  We are being told that we have to wait to be harmed before we can do anything to stop them. The Court has given us two choices: leave the land my family has farmed for three generations, or be a guinea pig for the government and the wind companies.”

Lawyer for the farm families, Julian N. Falconer commented: “This decision will leave people like my clients, who face massive wind development projects across this Province, in an impossible position. The Health Canada Study has already shown an association between the turbines and serious health effects. My clients and other families in rural Ontario will now have to suffer these adverse health effects before they can seek any relief from our court system. It won’t surprise anyone that my clients are frustrated with a process that seems to be stacked against them.”

While this decision may restrict these farm families from pursuing Charter remedies for these harms, they are committed to exploring the other legal options available to them and to holding both the government and the wind turbine companies accountable for the failure to protect their health.

Concerned citizen groups throughout the Province remain committed to seeking justice for those in rural communities affected by industrial wind projects.

For further information, please contact Odi Dashsambuu of Falconers LLP at 416-964-0495, extension 248.


12 thoughts on “Highest court in Ontario declines to hear wind appeal, farm families disappointed

  1. Seeking justice in a fraudulent play court in all things legal. No help, cause it is rigged and it is big.
    Law of the creators land not the corporation of Canada is do no harm to others.that is from the highest laws from our creator. It is not a legal term,but very simple., we have witnesses and we have the law.
    The legal system is built to do no harm to big profit building corporations that may harm the corporation of Canada’s purse. That is there weigh scale and judgement

  2. This is a total disgrace. Not only politicians, but apparently our judicial system is also intent on the sole destruction of Ontario as we now know it.
    Does it not mean anything to these current officials that they are responsible for the health and well being of ALL residents of ONTARIO.
    Not just the privileged few!

  3. It is so sad what’s happening. There needs to be class action lawsuits about the damage. People who are going to have wind turbines need them == need to be aware get a medical phyiscal and they follow their health and then eventually, yes, I believe for those who live close will have to move from their homes.
    In a county in my state I visited the area === it was interesting how many of the homes were there, that didn’t appear to be lived in. I believe if researched those houses would be found to be owned by the wind company or a “shell company”.

  4. Pingback: Highest court in Ontario declines to hear wind appeal, farm families disappointed | Ontario Wind Resistance | ajmarciniak

  5. Here’s the definition of extortion.

    an act or instance of extorting.
    Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.
    oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest:
    the extortions of usurers.
    anything extorted.

    • Here’s A definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

      extort, v.

      Latin extort- participial stem of extorquēre,
      ex- out + torquēre to twist.

      literally, To wrest or wring (something) from a person; to extract by torture.

      1. trans. To obtain from a reluctant person by violence, torture, intimidation, or abuse of legal or official authority, or (in weaker sense) by importunity, overwhelming arguments, or any powerful influence.

  6. Believe it or not —
    here’s an example:

    “Suncor extorted the people of …

  7. Court actions use up time and provide the needed time to get IWTs installed.

    The judicial system has shown that court proceedings in progress and ERTs will not stop the installation of IWTs so as not to slow down investments in these projects.

    Local governments will be sued if bylaws are enacted.

    This whole process has continued unabated since the June 2014 election.

    So what other options are available? Civil disobedience or separation are two measures.

    Any other ideas?

  8. “Bay Street lawyers, Big Banks, and blue chip Canadian companies are extorting Canadians? Are you serious?”

    “Like a heart attack.”

    “They say their intent wasn’t to torture, but was to operate industrial wind energy projects. In fact, they are under contract to do just that. Any sleep deprivation caused was just a by-product.”

    I’d like to hear them say that.

Leave a Reply

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