Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Court Decision

Court Decision

Ratings: (0)|Views: 526|Likes:

More info:

Published by: The London Free Press on Mar 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/05/2013

pdf

text

original

 
j
1.
CITATONJHanna
v.AGO,
201IONSC609
DIVIION
II
ALC()URTFlLENO.:491109DATE:20110303
I
I
.I
SUPERIORCO.RTOF
~ST;CE
DIVISIOAL,
COURT[,
CUNNINGHAM,A.C.,JENNINS,kSTON
JJ
I
i
I
BETWEEN:
I
i
IanHanna
Eric.
G,VlespielJulia
Croome,
fortheApplicaht
I
Applicant
II
-and-:
i
AttorneyGeneralforOntario
SaraBlkelk,,-aHewitt,
fortheRespondentRespondent
i.
MAR-03-201111:14
DIVCOURT
-and-
I
I
!
John'er,.jIAlexanderSmith,
mre~r
!
lIEARD:
January
24,2011
RDECI~OJ
CanadianWindEnergyAssociationIntervenor
REASONSF
4163275549P.002/011
forthe
ASTON
,J.
I
~~~I
I
[1]Thisapplicationforjudicialreviewcllenges
th
pro~ulgationofsections35.53,
S4
and55ofO.Reg.
359/09
madeunderPart.0.1of
th~
En~ironnten.lalProtection
Act
("the
EPA").
Thetitleofthisregulationisthe"newablenex:gyApprovalsRegulation."The
impugned
sectionsintheregulationprescribeinimums
,I
tbac~
requirementsforwindenergy
I
I
I
'I
 
MAR-03-201111:15
DIVCOURT
4163275549P.003/011
I
i
I
I
facilitiesandrequirethattheyconformtothe
inistry
0'
the
I
Environment'spublished
"Noise
Guidelinesfor
Wind
Farms."
Theregulation
arne
into
ect
onOctober
1,2009,
following
a
periodofpublicconsultationending
July
24,29.[2]Theregulation
was
enacted
by
theLieutenantGoemo~..:in~Counci1ontheadviceofthe
Minister
of
the
Environment.The
minister's
d
cisiontocommendpromulgationisatthe
heart
ofthisapplicationforjudicialreview.~
I
[3]
Section
11
of
the
EnvironmentalBtll.oRights,
S.q>
1993,
c.
28
(the
"EBR")
requires
theMinisteroftheEnvironmentto"takeevery
rea
enable
stepto
ensure
thattheministrystatementofenvironmentalvalues(the"SEV")isconsiredwhenever~ecisionsthatmightsignificantlyaffecttheenvironmentare
made
intheminis."Thea~plicantsubmitsthats.11ofthe
EBR
establishes
aconditionprecedentforthedecisi
D
by
thenlnistk'lorecommend
promulgation
oftheregulation,andabreachofthatconditionredershisd~eisiGn.andtheregulation,
ultravires.
In
particular,theministry'sstatementofenvi
mnental1
1
a!ues
setsoutprinciplestheministry
will
applyindeveloping
Acts,
regulationsanpolicies.
One
ofthoseprinciplesisthat"theministryusesaprecautionaryscience-based
iii,
proachin
ts
decisionmakingtoprotecthumanhealthandthe
environment."
Theapplicantcontendsthe
I'minister
failed
to
consider
that
"precautionaryprinciple."[4]Theapplicantputsforwardevidence
fr
mthree'd.i~ldoctorswhostatetherewasnoscientificevidenceavailableto
supportthem'
ister'sco
elusion
that
a550metre
setbackforindustrialwindturbinesfromaresidenceis
safe,
Thegistof
their
opinionevidenceis
that
thereismedicaluncertaintyabouttheimpactonhaanhealth
f
living
in
proximity
toanindustrialwindturbineandthatthe"precautionaryprin·ple"mantes~esolutionofthisscientificissuebeforesettingregulatorystandards..
i
[5]TheAttorneyGeneralfor
Ontario
hasbroughtaotiontostrikeoutthisevidenceasinadmissible.Iwillreturntothatmotion
.lat
in.
these
Ireasons.
TheAttorneyGeneralalsoopposestheapplicationonthebasisthatthe
iss,
esraised
are
pr~cludedfromjudicialreview
by
afullprivativeclause,areraisedinthewranforum,dinappropriatelyaskthecourttoadjudicateahypotheticalscientificissue.
I
,I
[6]Theintervenorsupportsthevalidityoferegulatinahdtakesthepositionthe
minister
.I
compliedwithallrequirernentsinvalidlyenactigthere"anon.
-!
;
ScopeofthisCourt'sJurisdiction
!
i
[7]Section37ofthe
EBR,
foundinPartIIofthe
ct,
~tates"failure
to
comply
with
aprovisionofthisPartdoesnotaffectthevall
'ty
ofanypolicy,Act,regulationorinstrumentexceptasprovidedins.118."Thissection
applies
tothe
I
minister'sdutytoconsiderthestatementofenvironmentalvaluesbecauses.1ofthe
EB'
'isalso
in
PartII.
I
[8]Section118(1)reads"noaction,dectson,failuretotakeaction,orfailuretomakeadecision
by
aministeror
his
orherdelegateunrthisAct
haUibe
reviewedin
any
court."
 
MAR-03-201111:15
DIVCOURT
4163275549P.004/011
I
[
[9]Section118(2)providesthatanypersoresident
i
Ontariomaymakeanapplicationforjudicialreview
on
the
grounds
thataministerhisor
herdelegate
"failed
in
afundamentalwaytocomplywiththerequirementsof-Part
II
rescdaosalforaninstrument."
[emphasis
added]
Underthedefinitions
in
the
EBR
an'instrument'includesa
permit,
licence,
approval,
authorization.
direction,ororderissuedunder
theActbut
does
not,include
a
regulation.
It
is
worthnotingthatduringthedebatesons.11a
proposekI
amendmenttos.118(2)thatwouldhaveremovedthewords"respectingaproposforan
insfrument'\
sothataregulationcouldbechallenged
through
judicialreview,was
specifiallyrejeotJd.,
i
!
[10]
In
short,s.118(2)
doesnotapply
in
thi
caseande
decisionof
the
minister
is
protectedfrom
judicial
scrutiny
bytwo
privativeclauses,both
s.
37d~.118(1)ofthe
ERR.
The
court'sjurisdictionisthereforequitecircumscribed..
I
[11]
Furthermore,
government
policy,
exressed
thr
uJaregulation,isnotsubjectto'judicialreviewunlessitcanbedemonstrated
l
theregu~tiorlwasmadewithoutauthorityorisunconstitutional.Aregulationmaybesaidhave
beep
madewithoutauthorityonly
if
the~abinethas.faile~toobserveaeO?ditionprecedentset
fO~..
in~~
enablingstatuteorifthepow
7
r
IS
Dotexercised
in
accordance
With
thePUlpoeof
the
le.
slarion,See
ApotexInc.v.
Ontario(LieutenantGovernor-of-Counsel}
[2007]OJ.
O.
3121(.A.)tatpara.32.
[12]
Theapplicantagreesthatthe'Validity
0
theregulltionlisonlyjusticiableif
it
wasmade
ultravires.
due
to
the
minister'sfailureto
meeta
conditio
precedent.
.I
,
[13]TheapplicantconcedesthatitisnotthisCourtsfunctiontoweightheevidenceor
information
uponwhich
the
ministerexercisehis
discre
on
.l
However,hesubmits
theremust
besome
evidence
thata550metre
setback
is
fficient
to
protect
againstriskstohwnan
health.Otherwisethe
minister's
decision
is
purelybitrary
an
amountsto
a
failureto
consider
a
fundamentalpartofthe
SEV,
specifically
the"recautionap
principle."[14]
Was
theministerrequired
to
comply
wi,
s.
11of¢.e
EhR
asaconditionprecedenttohisdecisiontorecommendpromulgationofthere
lation?
Did
he!
doso?
[15]
The
Attorney
Generalsubmitsthatthe
conSideratIon
dr
the
statement
ofenvironmentalvaluesisnotaconditionprecedenttothem.ster'sdetisionbecausetheSEVonlyreflectsinternalministrypolicy,notastatuteorregulaion.If
thel
Courtmustnotengageinareviewof.
government
policy,itshouldnotengage
in
arviewof~eth7rtheministerhascompliedwith
governmentpolicy.
Ms.Blakethereforesubm'thatthen!isnbjusticiableissue.Alternatively,shesubmitstheminister
did
complywiththeruirements
under
s.11ofthe
EBR.
I
The
Evidence
[16]TheRegulationispartofanewreneble
enel:~
approvalprocess(REA).Awindturbine,locatedonland,withacapacityofWof
p0'rer
doesnotrequireanREA.Windfacilitiesonlandgeneratingbetween
3kW.
butessthan
S@
kWj,requireanREAbuttherearenomini~~
setback
r~quir~ents~nthe
t?~atio
s..~e~ete~sectionsoftheregula~jon
in
thisapplicationareforindustrialwindfacilitiesg'neranngore
!than
50kW.Dependingonthe

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->