National Review: Big Wind SLAPPs Critic

page_2012_200_bryce_squareRobert Bryce, The National Review
The Goliath of the wind-energy business is suing David. The defendant is Esther Wrightman, an activist and mother of two from the tiny town of Kerwood, Ontario, which sits roughly halfway between Detroit and Toronto.

Wrightman, 32, has angered the Florida-based NextEra Energy (market capitalization: $32 billion) by starting a couple of bare-bones websites, ontariowindresistance.org and mlwindaction.org, as well as a YouTube channel, which she uses to lampoon the company. In its lawsuit, filed on May 1, NextEra claims that Wrightman has misused its logo and libeled the company by calling it “NexTerror” and “NextError.” And while the company doesn’t specify the amount of damages it seeks from Wrightman, it says that it will donate any proceeds from the litigation to United Way.

NextEra owns some 10,000 megawatts of wind-generation capacity, or about one-sixth of all U.S. capacity. And the company is aggressively developing six new wind projects in Canada, one of which, the Adelaide Wind Energy Centre, aims to put 38 turbines just north of Wrightman’s home. (You can see her property and the surrounding land by going here.)

NextEra’s filing against Wrightman is a textbook case of a SLAPP suit, a strategic lawsuit against public participation. And it’s a particularly loathsome one as NextEra filed it in Ontario, the epicenter of the backlash against the encroaching sprawl of the 150-meter-high, noise-producing, bird-and-bat-killing, subsidy-dependent wind-energy sector. Read article

MPP McNaughton’s letter to Attorney General re: NextEra v. Esther SLAPP suit

Monte_McNaughton

Legal bullies: Wind turbine corporation picks ridiculous excuse to go after environmentalist

esther3Ezra Levant, Edmonton Sun
A $32 billion energy corporation has filed a massive lawsuit against an Ontario environmentalist named Esther Wrightman. It’s a SLAPP suit: Strategic litigation against public participation. It’s not really about legal arguments. It’s about crushing Wrightman with legal bills and burning up her time, so she can’t spend time campaigning against them.

The lawsuit doesn’t allege Wrightman vandalized their property, or trespassed, or anything like that. Their complaint is that, on her homemade website, Wrightman mocked the company’s name. She even had the temerity to publish a satirical version of their logo. That’s it. That’s why they hired three lawyers at one of Canada’s largest law firms, McCarthy Tetrault, to sue her into the ground.

And the only reason you have not heard of this lawsuit — the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is not defending her free speech, the CBC has not put this on their nightly news — is because the corporate bully here is not an oil company like Exxon. It’s a wind turbine company called NextEra. See, that kind of bullying is OK. Read article

Legislation aimed at curbing legal action used to limit expression

SLAPP_jpg_800x1000_q100Sarnia Observer
Esther Wrightman says she could be the poster child for Ontario’s proposed new law to curb strategic lawsuits launched to silence critics. The provincial government introduced the Protection of Public Participation Act just weeks after wind farm developer NextEra Energy Canada launched a lawsuit against Wrightman, a Middlesex County anti-wind activist.

Wrightman said that when she heard about the proposed new law, “I went, ‘What? Really? I could use that, right about now.” Ontario says the law, if passed, would allow courts to quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits launched to intimate opponents and reduce their ability to participate in public debates. The legislation, based on recommendations from an expert advisory panel, would also reduce time wasted in court on meritless claims, the government says.

“We live in a fair and democratic society, and we believe that this law will provide a balanced approach that recognizes both the right to public expression and the importance of protection of reputation,” said Attorney General John Gerretsen.

Wrightman said that while the new law may come too late to help her, it acknowledges that strategic lawsuits are a problem. Laws to protect citizens against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are common in the U.S., but Quebec is currently the only Canadian province with one. Read article

Watch Ezra Levant: Taking on turbine towers

Sun Media – Ezra Levant
A giant foreign wind turbine corporation is suing an Ontario woman who is opposing turbines in her backyard.

Head-on with giant

EstherDebora Van Brenk, London Free Press
Canada’s wind energy giant has slapped a Strathroy-area rock gardener with a lawsuit alleging she’s harming its reputation. In a Goliath-vs-David dispute, NextEra Energy Canada says Esther Wrightman is discrediting it, depreciating its goodwill in the community and mutilating its copyrighted logo. NextEra Energy’s operating revenue in 2012 was $14 billion.

On the other side is Wrightman, who says she can’t even afford the $144 fee to file her statement of defence. “It’s totally parody,” Wrightman said, defending her manipulation of the NextEra logo. “It’s parody and it’s fair comment on what they’ve done.”

A mother of two, whose income comes from disability supports and selling plants for rock gardens, Wrightman has been a thorn in NextEra’s side for opposing wind turbines planned for the Strathroy area. She’s also drawn the company’s ire for posting a video of the dismantling of a bald eagle’s nest in the path of a Haldimand turbine project. The lawsuit, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, contends Wrightman mutilated the firm’s logo by making it read “NextTerror” and “NextError.” It also says she infringed on copyright, made misleading statements meant to discredit the business, made false representations and showed bad faith. Read article

Ontario cracks down on spurious lawsuits…?

SLAPP_jpg_800x1000_q100The Globe and Mail
Ontario’s minority Liberal government is pledging to better protect freedom of speech with legislation that would crack down on spurious lawsuits sometimes filed to silence citizens or environmentalists that oppose development projects.

The suits, known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, are tactical moves made to intimidate local residents or activists engaged in a fight with a developer or corporation that can afford expensive lawyers. But some lawyers who act for developers have warned against moves that would too dramatically restrict their ability to use the courts to fight wild claims made by some of their opponents.

Attorney-General John Gerretsen will announce the legislation Tuesday at an event at the University of Toronto’s law school, and the bill will be formally introduced in the legislature in the afternoon.

In 2010, the Ontario government struck a blue-ribbon panel, chaired by University of Toronto law-school dean Mayo Moran, to advise it on how to draft legislation to stop developers or other plaintiffs from filing lawsuits meant only to intimidate critics. Read article

Superior Court decision states Charter Rights must be considered in SWEAR case

SWEARView Decision: Drennan v. K2 Wind Ontario Inc.
A long awaited decision has been reached in the SWEAR (Safe Wind  Energy for All Residents) case, which resulted in Justice Duncan Grace staying the proceeding until such time as a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) is granted for the K2 Wind  project. SWEAR was represented  by Julian  Falconer, a prominent human rights and  constitutional lawyer.

“This is not a dismissal of the proceedings, only a delay  until after an REA has been issued” explains Dave  Hemingway, President of SWEAR.

The question arose at the hearing  as to the  ability of the Environmental  Review Tribunal (ERT) to hear a  question on the Canadian Charter  of Rights and Freedoms  (the “Charter”) and   how the  Green Energy and Economy Act and “level of harm” apply. Continue reading

Huron County farmers take wind fight to tribunal

si- drennansBetter Farming
Huron County farmers Shawn and Trisha Drennan will be pursue a Charter of Rights challenge of a large wind electricity-generating project for Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh Township at the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. Shawn Drennan says they must wait until the project developer, K2 Wind Ontario Inc., completes its Renewable Energy Approval from the Ontario Environment Ministry. The couple will have 15 days to file their challenge after, and if, the approval is granted.

K2 Wind Ontario spokesperson Jay Shukin says the company filed its documents and application in November 2012. A technical review that began in February is currently underway. K2 Wind Ontario Inc. is a partnership of three companies – Capital Power LP, Samsung Renewable Energy Inc. and Pattern Renewable Holdings Canada ULC. The Drennans initially challenged the project in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. It was heard in Goderich on March 1.

In a written decision handed down May 15, Justice A.D. Grace says the Drennans were premature in asking for an injunction to halt the project until the charter challenge was heard. He says their injunction should be “stayed until the statutory process set forth in the EPA (Environmental Protection Act) is complete.” Read article

UN Convention on Rights of the Child & Canada’s Role: Part 6- The Right to Rest & Leisure

Wind Victims Ontario
Canada played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention outlines the responsibilities governments have to ensure a child’s right to survival, healthy development, protection and participation in all matters that affect them. The four general principles of the Convention are: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. [1] Public Health Agency of Canada

DSCN2225Convention on the Rights of the Child [2]
Article 31
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure,

The Right to Rest and Leisure

  • For years people have been suffering the detrimental effects from wind turbines that are operating too close to homes and schools. “Living with turbines for almost 5 years, we have become used to the lack of sleep and all of the side affects that go along with it. We live within 700m of two turbines, there are 6-8 within 1 km, and at least 12 within 2 kim’s. Yesterday was report card day and my eldest son’s report card broke my heart. It started with a glowing report “…is a very responsible student in every area within the school. He walks in the hallways in the manner that is expected, demonstrating to others what a responsible student looks like. He works hard to ensure…” but my heart broke when I read “…should continue to put his best effort forth in paying close attention to the teacher and his classmates when they speak, rather than resting his head on his desk surface.” My son complains often that he has a hard time at school because he is so tired all the time, and when I asked him how he handled it he said he tried to close his eyes on his desk from time to time, but it really hit home when it was there in black and white on the report card.”[3] Continue reading

UN Convention on Rights of the Child & Canada’s Role: Environmental pollution, Parents & children are informed

gramma_and_kids[1]Ontario Wind Victims
Canada played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention outlines the responsibilities governments have to ensure a child’s right to survival, healthy development, protection and participation in all matters that affect them. The four general principles of the Convention are: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. [1] Public Health Agency of Canada

Convention on the Rights of the Child [2]
Article 24
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(c) … taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health (dangers from wind turbines near homes and schools) Continue reading

Report Cards and Earaches – An update on the kids

CHATHAM - KENT ONTARIO KRUGER ENERGY PORT ALMA WIND FROM HWY3 TALBOT TRAIL 15My Next Door Neighbour is a Wind Turbine
Nikki Horton, Port Alma, ON
It’s been a while since I wrote on the blog page…too long really…but it’s been a long, tough winter.  Getting through the regular day to day stuff (laundry, homework, work, groceries, cleaning, taxes, etc.) seems like more than enough to use up the available time in a day.  I wanted to update you on the kids though….
Last night my youngest who is now 7 yrs old woke up screaming that his ears hurt.  We had fallen asleep together and so I was next to him.  When he woke up and was so upset, crying and complaining of an earache, I instinctively touched his ear softly and he screamed.  I assumed he had an ear infection, not uncommon in young children.  I got up, got him some children’s advil, and a glass of water.  I held him and let him watch a movie on the Blackberry playbook until he fell asleep.  He said his ears hurt really bad.  As I was laying with him I noticed that my ears felt a little sore, not a lot, just a little and that my glands felt a bit swollen, my mouth dry.  I assumed we were both getting some kind of sinus, throat or ear infection or a cold.  When we woke up in the morning however, everything was fine.  It makes me wonder if it was a turbine affect since it came on so suddenly and was gone the next morning. Read more

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child & Canada’s Role Part 2: Development of the child

gramma_and_kids[1]Wind Vicitms Ontario
Canada played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention outlines the responsibilities governments have to ensure a child’s right to survival, healthy development, protection and participation in all matters that affect them. The four general principles of the Convention are: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. [1] Public Health Agency of Canada

Convention on the Rights of the Child [2]
Article 6
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Development of the child

  • many studies have demonstrated that intrusive noises such as those from passing road traffic, nearby rail systems, and overhead aircraft can adversely affect children’s cardiovascular system, memory, language development, and learning acquisition [3]
  • 7 out of the 10 school-age children and teens did worse in school during exposure to turbines, compared to before or after, including unexpected problems in reading, math, concentration, and test performance, noticed by both teachers and parents. Teachers sent notes home asking what was wrong with the children. [3]
  • The evidence for adequate sleep as a prerequisite for human health, particularly child health, is overwhelming. Governments have recently paid much attention to the effects of environmental noise on sleep duration and quality, and to how to reduce such noise.1 However, governments have also imposed noise from industrial wind turbines on large swathes of peaceful countryside. [4]
  • A family in southern Ontario reports: We live within 700m of two turbines, there are 6-8 within 1 km. Yesterday was report card day and my eldest son’s report card broke my heart. It started with a glowing report… but my heart broke when I read “…should continue to put his best effort forth in paying close attention to the teacher and his classmates when they speak, rather than resting his head on his desk surface.” My son complains often that he has a hard time at school because he is so tired all the time, and when I asked him how he handled it he said he tried to close his eyes on his desk from time to time, but it really hit home when it was there in black and white on the report card. [5] Continue reading

Concerned mothers gather at QP to speak with Wynne about wind turbines — she refused.

Letter to Kathleen Wynne _ SCorreia April 18 2013

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parents demand protection for their children from wind turbine emissions

kidsFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 18, 2013
Queen’s Park
“Premier Wynne, 550 meters is too close!”
A group of determined parents will arrive at Queen’s Park on Thursday morning April 18 at 11:30 to demand a meeting with Premier Kathleen Wynne to discuss the risks to their children from industrial wind turbines. The group is led by Shellie Correia of West Lincoln whose son Joey has Sensory Processing Disorder.

“I met with Kathleen Wynne in my hometown just before Christmas when she was campaigning for the leadership of her party,” says Correia. “I gave her many reports and a letter from Joey’s doctor and I haven’t heard from her since.” Correia’s concerns and those of parents all across Ontario are for their children, some with special needs such as autism and other issues who are at risk.
Dr. Chrystella Calvert is a behavioral Pediatrician and treats Joey. She agrees. “Noxious stimuli (or unexpected, or unnatural stimuli) are a source of environmental stress that affect the human brain…Wind turbines concern me, given my strong knowledge of neurobiology,” says Dr Calvert. “I as a “normal brain” (or typical brain) individual would not want this risk to my mental health (or my children’s’) in my neighbourhood.”

The vast 77-turbine wind project is slated for the area with massive 3 megawatt wind turbines, some at exactly 550 meters from Joey’s home.

In her letter Dr. Calvert states, “Science has no evidence that this abnormal, incessant stimulus does not have long lasting effects on the developing fetal child and adolescent brain. In a developed society like Canada, we must advocate and protect the most vulnerable members.” Continue reading

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Canada’s Role- Part 1: Competence, Safety, Health

protect-children-from-crimes1Wind Victims Ontario
Canada
played an instrumental role in drafting and promoting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention outlines the responsibilities governments have to ensure a child’s right to survival, healthy development, protection and participation in all matters that affect them. The four general principles of the Convention are: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and respect for the views of the child. [1] Public Health Agency of Canada

Convention on the Rights of the Child [2]
Article 3

3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health,

Competence, Safety, Health
–     The Ontario Ministry of Health will not accept health complaints related to industrial wind turbines. [3]
–     The Ontario Ministry of Environment has repeatedly failed to adequately regulate, monitor and enforce emissions from industrial wind turbines. [4] [5] [6] [7]
–     Health Canada has failed to respond and resolve to a very large number and well documented health complaints related to industrial wind turbines [8]
–     A 2011 Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) decision found that the test for serious harm to human health from wind turbines can include both direct and indirect pathways. On July 23, 2012 Ontario Chief Medical Officer or Health, Dr. Arlene King continued to stand by her conclusions about no direct health effects [9] Read article

CAW – End this social injustice!

CAWGreg Schmalz – S.T.O.P. ( Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy )
Below is our report summarizing week one health and noise complaints that we have been made aware of. These were presented and read at our Council meeting just past. For 3 straight days the CAW/CEP turbine has not been running. Still no communication with the residents who have experienced serious health effects has occurred. It has now begun again.

Apparently the residents have been officially designated a protest group by the CAW/CEP.  It appears, according to posts on your website, that the CAW has a new National Policy that they do not communicate with protest groups according to spokesperson Ken Bondy. Is this the treatment Canada’s new, soon to be named, CAW / CEP National Superunion would expect from the organized employers like the big three auto manufacturers, Air Canada and Global to name just a few?

Or are the residents of Saugeen Shores, like all wind turbine impacted citizens across Ontario, being tossed into the vicious circle of entrapment without remedy that is the Ministry of the Environment’s dead end complaint process? File a complaint, CAW cc’s MOE, turbine’s performance deemed to be OK, case closed. Letting the MOE handle complaints without scrutiny, accountability nor policy to deal with health complaints is akin to allowing the NRA sole power to investigate firearm misuse.

Premier Wynne you are failing in your duty to protect our health and peaceful enjoyment of our property which are our Charter rights. We have tried to communicate with you but to no avail. We the citizens of Ontario demand you act to end this social injustice.

Greg Schmalz
S.T.O.P. ( Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy )

———
Family #1 – 550 m. Turbine thumping loud in house, children ages 6 – 9 can’t sleep, experiencing night sweats and tremors, mother has headache, police called who take noise complaint filed.

Family #2- 450 m. Father on deck outside, swooshing too loud to enjoy outdoors, develops migraine headache, files CAW complaint. Continue reading

Questions for Dr. Bigelow

Full-DisclosureOpen Letter Audit request for full disclosure of funding and health risks
[Excerpt] Please confirm if you intend to provide participants in your research with full disclosure of all health risks from human exposure to wind turbines. Please confirm if you intend to provide full disclosure that you “…do agree that wind turbines will cause a non-trivial percentage of individuals living in areas around wind facilities to be highly annoyed.”

Please confirm if you have disclosed to the Ontario Ministry of Environment and/or the Government of Ontario and/or the Premier of Ontario and/or the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, and/or the Ontario Minister of Health, and/or wind energy developers and/or the Canadian Wind Energy Association that you “…do agree that wind turbines will cause a non-trivial percentage of individuals living in areas around wind facilities to be highly annoyed.”

I look forward to your response to this request for audit disclosure regarding your existing and/or planned research on humans. If you should have any questions or require copies of the references cited in this letter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours truly,
Brett Horner BA CMA

NextEra’s Next Nest

I spy with my little eye something that will NEVER AGAIN be removed by a wind developer in Ontario. An eagle nest. Over my dead body, NexTerror.

When the community labels Nextera “NexTerror” and “NextError”, it isn’t for just any old reason. Perhaps parody is ingrained in Canadians, and this is why Nextera has earned itself yet another new name: NESTerror. We watched the  take down of the eagle’s nest in Haldimand, and literally vowed never again.

choppedSo this weekend some pictures of a bald eagle and it’s nest were sent to me by a local resident. This nest is in the Nextera Bornish Wind Project (@ Kerwood Rd & Elginfield Rd), close to wind turbines (634m), and very close (187m) to the massive switchyard for the Bornish, Adelaide, Jericho and Cedar Point Wind Projects— a total of 221 turbines for Middlesex and Lambton counties. The Bornish and Adelaide projects are scheduled to be approved by the MOE this month.

The Haldimand nest destruction was not a ‘one-off’, I’m sure of that, even though Nextera rep Tom Bird told us, “I absolutely don’t want to do that again.” Not even a month after they took down the nest in Haldimand county, they were eying up one in Middlesex county.

Looking through Nextera’s website I came across these recent addendums from February, 2013:

Continue reading

“Cease & Desist” for NexTerror Energy? No thanks.

March 22, 2013
Awanish Sinha, McCarthy Tetrault  LLP
PO Box 48, Suite 5300, Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower, Toronto, ON  M5K 1E6

Dear Mr. Sinha,
Re: CEASE & DESIST DEMAND ON BEHALF OF NEXTERA ENERGY CANADA, ULC (“NextEra”)

Thank you for the letter dated March 20, 2013 that was dropped between my doors the other day.

The reason I (and “we” the communities in rural Ontario) are referring to your client  Nextera as “Nexterror”, is that we feel it is “fair comment” considering this companies actions and behaviour in the past and present in our communities.

We believe that Nextera creates “errors” and “terrors” in our community, and that these facts are well known to the public and therefore these facts are notorious.

At the same time, we have published these facts on our website: Ontario Wind Resistance. They include:

Terror:
Eagle Nest/ Wildlife destruction

Picture 003-The “First Video” clearly shows the destruction of an eagles nest.
-The “Second Video” shows Tom Bird of Nextera saying,The authorization we got from the ministry of natural resources was to destroy this nest”.

Clearly this is terrorizing the community when 18 men with chainsaws and bulldozers descend on, and proceed to cut down an active eagles nest. Even those in favour of turbines are horrified by this despicable action.

You have no right to ask that these movies be removed, and in fact you did not give a single reason as to why you thought the “Second Video” should be removed, as “Nexterror” does not appear on it anywhere. It seems that Nextera would just like to bury this incident and remove the evidence from Youtube.

Below are some of the numerous reports published on Nextera’s destruction of the eagle nest and other wildlife and their habitats:

Rosemary Wakegijig First Nations – Wind Energy/FiT Protest 2013

Who wants their medical records public?

human-rights-abuseBob Gaunt, The Sachem
It is disconcerting that Ms. Davies’ letter, “Wind Turbines do not cause annoyance” (March 28) is considered an adequate response to the well-researched and fact-based letter of Ms. Kidd, “Ontario needs a wind energy moratorium” (March 21). Both are well written, but Ms. Davies places a lot of unwarranted reliance on a recent Australian study claiming that anti-wind farm groups actually were responsible for adverse health effects reported by some people living close to wind turbines.

The study she referred to is not a clinical study as claimed, but, as the report itself makes clear, created to test four hypotheses relevant to psychogenic explanations (in unsophisticated lay terms: a psychological origin for physical illness– or more bluntly, it’s all in your head). The report relied on records of noise or health complaints obtained from wind farm companies regarding residents living near 51 Australian wind farms. We all know how reliable self-reporting of adverse outcomes is, don’t we? The report lists many references to support its hypothesis, including “Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal. Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group Inc v Director, Ministry of the Environment.” Clearly, the Australian report’s authors never actually read the Ontario report, or they may have been less inclined to include it.

This Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) is significant in that it demonstrates the extent to which your government is willing to go to shut down dissent. The director, Ministry of the Environment issues approvals to wind energy project developers and so, in appeals to the tribunal, is a de facto supporter of the developer against all comers. In this tribunal, the director was granted a draconian ruling that any residents who wanted to come forward as witnesses to testify about adverse health effects they believed they experienced from living close to wind turbine installations first had to provide:

“All medical records for the witnesses who are claiming serious health effects due to proximity to wind turbines. The medical records should include all records from any health practitioner visited by and/or providing treatment to the witnesses including but not limited to general practitioners and specialists, and including but not limited to neurologists, psychiatrists or psychologists.  The medical records should include but not be limited to doctors’ notes, prescriptions, medical referrals and/or opinions, and all hospital records of visits, treatments and/or surgeries. The director requires complete records and information for a period starting ten years before the witness commenced residing near the wind turbine project in question up to the present, for each proposed witness.” (ERT Case No.11-208, dated 29th of February, 2012, page 2). Read article

Must watch: wind turbine effects on couple in Australia

Melissa and Rikki talk about life among the wind turbines at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria, Australia

Nexterror Energy sent me a ‘cease and desist demand’. What would you do?

Nextera-Nexterror letter from lawyer Nextera-Nexterror letter from lawyer 001

“Offending” material:
Video: Wind turbine company Nextera & MNR destroy Bald Eagle Nest & Habitat in Haldimand Cty, ON
Video: Nextera Energy in damage control mode on Eagle Nest removal


NexterrorBullies
nexterror

Autistic children cannot live near wind turbine projects

SickChilld_291x291_20080813-135333Lambton County, ON, North American Platform Against Wind Power
Today on World Autism Awareness Day, Sarah is worried. She is the mother of three autistic children. But Sarah’s concerns have been increased tenfold by the fact that applications have been filed for two industrial wind projects totaling over 130 turbines near her 36 acre farm in Lambton County. “It’s a haven of peace for my kids. My neighbours know them and look out for them if they stray,” says Sarah. “But I have researched the effects of wind turbines on autistic children and I am devastated. Who will look out for them now?”

Recently a survey by Davis and Steigler (2010) of over 17,000 children who have Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) shows that over 40% were “hypersensitive to sounds” and that “noise sensitivity is a particular problem” for children with ASD. Continue reading

Six Nations man posts trespassing notices near wind turbine sites

Bill MontureJennifer Vo, The Sachem
Six Nations resident Bill Monture said he is resorting to using Ontario’s law in an attempt to stop Industrial Wind Turbines from coming into the Haldimand and Six Nations area. “All we’re doing is standing up for what’s rightfully ours,” said Monture. “The Mother Earth is our mother. She’s our life giver. She’s our sustenance. Yet, what are we doing? We’re destroying her.”

Monture along with Six Nations resident Lester Green had noted in the past during the turbine appeal process that if the appeals didn’t follow through, native residents would put up trespassing signs on the land. Monture said the trespassing notices should hold up in court, as he said the sites of the proposed wind turbine projects in the county fall in the Haldimand Proclamation Nanfan Treaty area. He said that land is their traditional hunting area, and he believes that since trespassing is a law of Ontario, the Ontario Provincial Police should enforce it.

“My argument is that it’s a valid thing,” said Monture, citing incidents when he said trespassing notices have been put up on disputed land against non-natives and the charges stood in court. “Now, we’re putting up the same thing in here within our traditional hunting areas.” Cayuga Detachment Commander Inspector Phil Carter said the OPP would investigate every call that comes to them. Read article

Support sought for wind turbine moratorium

kids signsBy Barbara Simpson, Sarnia Observer
SARNIA – A concerned Lambton County resident is calling on the local public school board to support a moratorium on industrial wind turbines being built within the school board district. Plympton-Wyoming resident Keith Douglas said the board needs to act especially since wind projects are being proposed for sites near two Lambton Kent District schools.

Scientific research shows wind turbines generate both audible and inaudible noise, which could potentially impact the health of students and teachers, Douglas told trustees. “Closing the windows in a school will not keep (low frequency sound) away from the children or teachers,” he said, adding low frequency sound has been linked to cases of motion sickness and disorientation. Suncor Energy Products is proposing to erect as many as 46 turbines in the area of Plympton-Wyoming, Lambton Shores and Warwick Township. Read article

MOE Field Officer: “We were told no.”

Ontario Ministry of Environment Officer Martin McConnochie November 29, 2012 at the home of a person affected by wind turbines. He explains why he could not measure the noise of the wind turbines on a particularly windy/noisy night. More evidence of corruption in this wind energy scandal.

Bluewater passes $434,000 wind turbine building permit fee

Tyson Dyck, legal counsel for NextEra:“You may also know that under Ontario law there is potential liability, not only for municipalities, but also for individual municipal officials,” Dyck continued, “where there are actions taken that result in damages based on unlawful legal actions, such as the passage of a bylaw.”

NexterrorBulliesMac Christie, Times-Advocate Staff
VARNA – The Municipality of Bluewater has passed high building permit fees for industrial wind turbines in the municipality, but a legal battle may be looming. Council passed fees which will see developers pay $434,000 per turbine, as part of an updated bylaw March 4 under the direction of Toronto-based lawyer Eric K. Gillespie, whose legal firm drafted the bylaw. The updated fees will charge a $14,000 base permit fee, a $220,000 security per turbine for decommissioning, a $100,000 fee per turbine for matters related to health and property devaluation and a $100,000 fee per turbine for potential legal matters arising as a result of the turbines.

Gillespie told council in his view the bylaw does not conflict with existing legislation, such as the Green Energy Act. “You may . . . hear a point of view that says there may be issues around whether this bylaw conflicts in any way with legislation,” Gillespie said. “It’s our respectful view it does not.” Gillespie noted his firm looked at the bylaw in a practical sense, of how it would be applied in the real world and in the face of a legal challenge. “Thought has gone into how these amounts should be applied and what seems to be reasonable and something that the municipality can stand behind,” Gillespie said. “That is the basis for the recommendation.” He noted that’s why the firm recommended the originally proposed $25,000 per turbine, per year economic development fee be removed from the bylaw and instead levied as a development charge. Based on the expected 20-year lifespan, the fee worked out to roughly $500,000 per turbine. Read article

Where are the ‘willing hosts’?

no_1Orangeville Citizen
ON THE ONE HAND, a recent survey suggested that 69 per cent of Canadians favour further development of wind energy. On the other, Ontario’s Official Opposition and many rural municipalities are calling for a moratorium on new wind power developments, at least until a federal study of risks to health posed by low-level noise from wind turbines is completed, likely two years from now.

In the circumstances, it’s interesting to note what Tuesday’s Speech from the Throne had to say. After promising to work with municipalities on how to ease gridlocks in the Greater Toronto Area, the speech added: “Your government intends to work with municipalities on other issues, too. Because communities must be involved and connected to one another. …

“They must have a voice in their future and a say in their integrated, regional development, so that local populations are involved from the beginning if there is going to be a gas plant or a casino or a wind plant or a quarry in their hometown, because our economy can benefit from these things, but only if we have willing hosts.” Read article