Two appeals launched against provincial approval for St. Columban wind project

CharterPreliminary Hearing for the Appeal of the St. Columban Renewable Energy Approval
Date: August 14th
Time: 10:00 am
Place: Brussels Community Centre.

Susan Hundertmark, Seaforth Huron Expositor
Two appeals have been launched against the recent provincial approval for a 15-turbine project by St. Columban Energy LP. Scotty and Jennifer Dixon, of Beechwood Line and Thomas and Catherine Ryan, of Summerhill Road, will be represented by Julian Falconer in an appeal of the St. Columban wind project, arguing that the Renewal Energy Approval violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Rob Tetu, of Huron East Against Turbines (HEAT), said that while the anti-turbine group is directing the lawyers and pulling together community support and fundraising for the appeal, the two couples have agreed to launch the appeal because “they are the  most severely affected and agreed to let their names stand.” The 20-page notice of appeal, filed July 16, states that the wind project violates the appellants’ right to security since it has a “serious adverse impact on the appellants’ physical and psychological integrity.”

The notice questions the process for granting the REA since it does not require the director of the Ministry of the Environment to consider potential health effects and does not comply with the precautionary principle, “which is a principle of fundamental justice.” As well, the process does not require St. Columban Energy LP to “conduct any form of study to determine adverse health effects on neighbours living in close proximity to the proposed project.”

The notice also points out that the province has not applied the precautionary principle when selecting 550 metres for a minimum setback for industrial wind turbines, “acting in an arbitrary manner” and placing the “evidentiary burden on the appellant to prove that there is serious harm to human health from the project.” Read article

9 thoughts on “Two appeals launched against provincial approval for St. Columban wind project

  1. Perhaps if more time and effort had been spent looking into the cronyism and possible corruption involved in Ontario renewable energy this situation would be a lot different than it is now.

    • When it comes to cronyism and corruption, the
      green energy scam is no different than any
      government program where people will take
      advantage of government handouts. This
      scam will end in one of two ways. We must
      purge every level of government from top to bottom
      (Federal, Provincial, Municipal) of the Agenda 21 dogma
      that has permeated our politics. Failing that, the
      more likely outcome will be an economic collapse
      which will bring about an end to green energy
      subsidies as is happening in several European

      • The difference here is that these renewable contracts are government contracts worth millions of dollars and if these contracts were obtained in an illegal manner then those involved can do jail time.
        To sit back and do nothing is to let anyone involved just get away with this.
        Seems not a whole lot of people understand that you can’t obtain government money by illegal means.

      • A lot of gvmt deals are not at arms-length, to
        imply that they are necessarily illegal and that
        somehow this revelation will put an end to the
        wind industry is a bit far fetched. My point is
        that our enemy is the government and its policy
        which is enabling the wind industry to destroy
        this province. We are letting our politicians
        foster what will ultimately result in an economic
        disaster and it will unfortunately take that to
        end this green energy scam.

      • Government contracts must be at arms -length. These are huge amounts of money involved here.
        These are not some “clean out the ditch” contracts.

      • If you have the belief or hope that our gvmt operates
        at arms-length with contract tenders, consultants etc..,
        you are living in a fantasy world.

  2. i’m not a lawyer but have read ERT decisions. these same arguments have been made before with the same outcome even where the tribunal has taken issue with the director for not complying with the MOEs own statement of environmental values incl. the precautionary principle. Appellants must prove the project will cause “serious harm”. Per the MOE, having your toe nails ripped out or your kids’ toe nails ripped out over a 20 year period does not amount to serious harm. By design, the laws & legal processes of this fascist state allow such torture. And now the corporatist state will expropriate private property to construct these instruments of torture. So much for our Charter rights and freedoms. Independent Environmental Commissioner Miller & Co. are just part of the show. Those once victimized, see thru the illusion of the benevolent state.

    • Ron M – you wrote, “…Appellants must prove the project will cause “serious harm”.
      That’s just the beginning of the limitations. In the Municipality of North Middlesex health appeal against the Bornish Project, The Director (MOE) has put forward a Motion to Dismiss and part of her grounds is that the issue of 550m setback can’t be used because it is relevant to ALL turbines and the appeal can only be based on issues that are specific to the Bornish project.
      In another case – the MLWAG appeal against the Varna Project, part of the argument in the Motion to Dismiss was based on the fact that building turbines above gas storage caverns which vent natural gas into the air was a public safety issue and couldn’t be argued in a health appeal.

  3. “Real” court has much more chance of succeeding than the tribunals.
    Personally, I am waiting for someone to bring *real turbine noise* to the court room as evidence. Has anyone tried this? Perhaps now is time.

    Thanks to everyone for keeping up the fight.

Leave a Reply

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