Lambton County will spend $20,000 to join legal battle before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal

lambtoncountymapSarnia Observer
In a potentially precedent-setting move, Lambton County council will financially back a legal battle before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal in an attempt to halt wind turbine construction. After months of debate and staff reports, county politicians narrowly voted 17-16 Wednesday in favour of spending $20,000 to become a presenter in Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) cases involving Huron County families who are challenging further wind development near their homes.

Local anti-wind activists, who packed county council chambers Wednesday, erupted with applause after the recorded vote was tallied. “I’m still in shock,” said Elizabeth Bellavance, of We’re Against Industrial Turbines Plympton-Wyoming (WAIT-PW). “I can’t believe we got it.”

Fellow WAIT-PW member David Bartlett said he wasn’t sure where the group’s request stood after months of debate around the council table. “When I reflected back on the proceedings of the past council meeting, I didn’t think we had much chance,” he said. Read article

20 thoughts on “Lambton County will spend $20,000 to join legal battle before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal

  1. Congratulations to the councillors who were smart enough to stand up for their constituents, and do what they can to protect them from the corrupt wind industry. Shame on those who did not have the courage, or brains, to do the same.

  2. If not Ice..Then FIRE…Freezing parts or flaming wind mill parts flying across the farmland!
    These are the REAL problems with these monsters.

    Reports of these issues all over the world and they still do not try and prevent ice build up or try and prevent fires?

    Seems simple?????

  3. It’s about time the councils step up and give some real support to the constituents to STOP these wind turbines. Saying that they are not a willing host means nothing unless they actually get involved and HAMMER this Liberal Gov’t with law suits for all the harm we know they are causing.If even one Mayor in these small communities would get all the not a wiling host together, and set up a committee to get organized and hire some legal advice on how to proceed as a group we would start to see some real progress .
    The communities that already have the turbines in place should be going after the Ontario Gov’t with legal action for damages which I’m sure could be proven in actual court rather than wasting time and money dancing around with the Environment Review Tribunals who are all appointed by the Gov’t. This is all wrong and needs to be settled at a higher level were there is no conflict of interest.
    Surely there must be some legal advice out there and a law firm that can take a class action suit against the Gov’t with support from all the unwilling hosts.
    We need an injunction to stop this GEA and we should not have to wait for another election, that will be too late for too many people and for Ontario

  4. To begin with the ERT has powers they never should have been given. Then appoint members to the ERT board with strong environmental views and citizens who have to deal with this situatuion don’t have a chance.

    It’s been expalined at OWR why a class action can’t be launced in Ontario against IWTs. It’s a too long and costly proceedure to do this under Ontario laws.
    Ontarians don’t have time to fiddle around with all of these ERTs and lawsuits as the turbines keep on being installed anyway.

  5. We know about the fire and ice dangers from IWTs
    However, developers go before Ontario agencies and say this has or will not happen with their development as this has not happened here in their service area which is true because there were no turbines in their development area.
    And there is no way of proving that fire and ice accidents will happen in the future in their projects.
    Anyway the developers don’t care because these projects will be pawned off onto investors.
    There is no way of proving future events.

    The individual ERTs don’t want information and testimony brought from hearing to hearing. This could backfire on them.
    They want to keep each hearing in a “separate box” to have control over this process.

  6. Signs, protests will never work. Political actiom does. You have the power with the coming elections in Ontario.

    Meet with the elected PCs especially and the Ontario Executive.
    We opposing the turbines will support the Ontario PCs with Money, canvassers, signs, ads on TV on the TTC . We will swamp the province and get the PCs elected.
    They promise to
    REMOVE ALL WIND TURBINES
    and do what other provinces are doing to get green cheap energy and e;electric bill the lowest in the world.

    Talk with Quebec Hydro or Newfoundland,
    Almost all of their electricity comes fro northern rivers.

    The Quebec hydro makes 2 billion dollars in profit from sales to the North Eastern States. It males their electric bills the cheapest in the world. Few wind turbines or nuclear.
    The cleanest power possible.
    Ontario has 2000 river sites north of the Great Lakes, Enough energy potential to provide all of North America with energy forever with green energy and huge profits forever.
    PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PHONE THE PRESIDENT OF QUEBEC HYDRO AND NEWFOUNDLAND LABRADOR HYDRO AND GET THEIR PROGRAMS < FINANCES ETC
    AND MEET WITH THE PC EXECUTIVE AND ELECTED MPPS
    You have been protesting, putting up sihns and have not stopped the turbines.

    These are dangerous products like defective cars and other products and must be removed as the are dangerous to people due to the infra sound they produces
    PLEASE RESPOND TO ME ABOUT DOING THAT

  7. The OP ERT decision was based on something that has already been proven. Habitiat fragmention and destruction will have harmful effects on Blandings turtles.
    There are no IWTs at OP so you can’t PROVE there will be other harmful effects.
    You can only prove something after the fact.
    Probabilities can be presented but this is not absolute proof.
    Same is true about mitigation plans to protect birds and bats. There is no proof they will work but they are accepted all the same.

  8. Times Colonist, Nov.26,2013
    “Future of Whistler’s hydrogen fuel-cell bus program in doubt due to high costs”
    This information required a FOI by CAW 333 to uncover this.
    Average fuel range is below the specified amount in the contract and is worse iin winter when water in the fuel cells freezes preventing the buses from starting and running efficiently.
    http://www.timescolonist.com/news/b-c/future-of-whistler-s-hydrogen-fuel-cell-bus-program-in-doubt-due-to-high-costs-1.710750
    Again, information is hidden about so-called “green” energy “facts”.

  9. Ballard Power Systems Inc., B.C.
    Ballard Board includes:
    Ian Bourne, Borad TransAlta, LP
    John Sheridan, Pres. & CEO + Board of Sun Media Corp.
    Carol Stephenson, GM Board
    http://ballard.com/about-ballard/leadership/board.aspx
    Ballard modules power the 20 Whistler hydrogen fuel-cell buses.

    western News, June 15,2006
    “Stephenson to chair provincial advisory board”
    The mcGuinty government appointed a group of Ontarians to the Ontario Research Fund/ORF including:
    Carol Stephenson
    Elizabeth Dowdeswell, UNEP & Chicago Climate Exchange
    http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/stories/stephenson_to_chair_provincial_advisory_board_20060615434809

  10. Not to worry…… Carol knows her stuff……..
    Her confidence is comforting……
    We reflect on what she wrote a couple of years ago:

    ‘[excerpt] For instance, when people speak about the banks, brokerage firms and investment companies which fared so poorly during the crisis, some of the biggest questions revolve around risk. How could they not have known the risks? And if they did know, why didn’t they do something sooner? Were they too timid to tackle the problems, hoping they would just go away? Why didn’t they understand the ramifications of their actions? Could they not foresee how their decisions would inevitably ripple across companies and countries to affect others? Did they even care that investors could lose money?

    Based on my experience, as a former CEO and as educator of business leaders, the executives leading these organizations should have known about the risks. They should have acted and acted quickly. And they should have felt compelled to act, basically because it was both the right and the smart thing to do. As the business leader from Montreal quoted above believes, policies and procedures are not enough. It is the leader’s responsibility to manage risk effectively.

    How do business leaders achieve effective risk management? Fundamentally, I believe they do three simple things well. First, they ask the right questions…

    Second, the best leaders consult with a mix of people, with different perspectives, backgrounds and knowledge to predict, assess and manage risk…By contrast, some of the firms that fared so badly during the crisis seemed to breed exclusive clubs for like-minded people. The people in these isolated groups were getting very rich, very fast. They got caught up in the success of the moment. Worse still, they believed they would never lose…

    Third, the most effective leaders during the global financial meltdown were people of good character. They had integrity, courage and compassion. They were careful, prudent and aware of their limitations. As such, they were sensitive about the risks of harming their shareholders through shaky investments. They made sure that any decision they made or any action taken by their firms would ultimately be good for their companies, their shareholders and their customers. Overall, they exhibited an unrelenting determination to contribute to the good of the organization they serve, the people who follow them and the communities in which they operate.

    By contrast, the worst failing exhibited by some leaders before, during and after the crisis, is that they just did not care about what might happen to other people. Some knew that their companies were building a deck of cards destined to collapse. They must have realized that people could get hurt, and that some investors could lose their life savings. Nevertheless, it didn’t seem to matter.

    In summary, policies and procedures for predicting, evaluating and managing risk are important. But if leaders don’t ask the right questions, if they don’t seek out a diversity of opinions and perspectives, and if they don’t act with integrity, these rules won’t make any difference. And when that happens, the blame for the damaging consequences rests solely with leadership.’

    • ‘[exerpt] Based on my experience, as a former CEO and as educator of business leaders, the executives leading these organizations should have known about the risks.’

      That being said –
      could easily be applied @ the local level of government,
      after all –
      the mayor is CEO – a position of trust
      [you know the rest]

      It’s not that complicated.

  11. Hopefully Lambton doesn’t spend its $20 000 on the ERT process. As we all know-this is a process that is set up to fail. All municipalities (including my own) should be ready to unite in the Falconer Charter Challenge when it goes to a real court (probably early in the new year) as our ERT decision is to come in January. The only way to beat this thing is to unite as one. The government and wind companies love it if people waste their hard earned money on an ERT that is fixed. They don’t have any funds left to continue the fight and they can continue to divide and conquer.

    We have just received word that the ERT will not address the Charter portion of our appeal as they claim they do not have the authority. It is onto a real court for us with Julian at the helm!

    • Note: Premier Social Justice – needs of the people – the survey

      Hopefully Lambton – makes every word count;
      – emphasizes they are participating and giving necessary assistance
      because the situation calls for it;
      and, they will be representing local citizens……….finally.

      ‘[excerpt] In a potentially precedent-setting move, Lambton County council will financially back a legal battle before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal in an attempt to halt wind turbine construction. After months of debate and staff reports, county politicians narrowly voted 17-16 Wednesday in favour of spending $20,000 to become a presenter in Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) cases involving Huron County families who are challenging further wind development near their homes.’

      p.s. Maidservant – derived from a Latin word – and, without them
      we would not have – the huge jet plane.

      Questions:
      1. – will the ERT – give them the boot?
      2. – will Lambton back away – quietly – themselves?

      It’s showtime!

    • 1. When did Jutta begin HATING victims of industrial wind turbines?
      2. Who cares?

      3. Is your community being ripped to shreds?
      4. How much do you pay your lawyer?

      Thanks in advance!
      — don’t forget to swear!

      ‘[excerpt] [42] If the Kroeplins decide to withdraw their appeals and the existing parties do not seek to amend the REA as part of any settlement agreement, then Rule 199 of the Tribunal’s Rules will apply. That rule provides that the “Tribunal shall issue a decision dismissing the proceeding” where there is a proposed withdrawal of an appeal that is agreed to by the parties and there is no alteration of the decision under appeal. While that scenario may cause a significant concern to HALT, its members and the moving parties, the Tribunal cannot undo their decision not to appeal. That decision has been made and the time for second-guessing it ended with the 15-day limitation period. While the Tribunal’s Rules seek to enhance access and public participation, the Tribunal must still act within its legislated authority. The statute gives concerned citizens the power to appeal renewable energy approval decisions within 15 days of notice being published in the environment registry. It is incumbent on those who want to have control over the prosecution of an appeal or the scope of the specific issues raised in a notice of appeal to file a valid appeal within 15 days. The decision not to appeal quite clearly cuts off significant options for those who are not appellants. In this proceeding, it is the Kroeplins who appealed and they retain control over whether the appeal will proceed.’

  12. One benefit the Lambton money will have is that QP now knows that the county is willing to back the people.
    The charter challenge is apt to go through the appeal process all the way to the supreme court with the backing of the Ontario government which could take years.
    People can’t depend on legal proceedures to get rid of IWTs but many think they can. So they take a wait and see position and do nothing else.

  13. Dowdeswell, Parker and Sharpe all have connections to Maurice Strong and all have served in an advisory capacity to the McGuinty government.

  14. Ministry Of Northern Development And Mines
    Minister Michael Gravelle, Thunder Bay
    Deputy Minister, George Ross, appointed Dec.5, 2011
    http://www.mndm,gov.on.ca/en/about/executives
    Cleantech Group, LLC Board includes:
    Nicholas Parker, Sr. Advisor OPG Ventures, Inc
    Maurice Strong
    Vicky Sharpe
    George Ross, Ontario Capital Growth Corp. Click on name to view biography
    http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=31212048
    George Ross is connected to Maurice Strong& Nicholas Parker.

Leave a Reply

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