Donnelly Law Clients Host Meeting to Bring Awairness About Fill
Local activists fight “tsunami of soil” at Tottenham Airfield
Wendy Gabrek
The New Tecumseth Times
July 23, 2014
On Tuesday, July 15th the group ‘New Tecumseth, Caledon, King – Citizens for Clean Water’ (or NTCK–CCW, formerly the Tottenham Citizens for Clean Water) held its first General Meeting at the Tecumseth Pines Community Centre.
The event was well attended – with standing room only – and focused on the quality of fill being dumped at the site of the Tottenham Airfield Corporation (or TAC), owned by John Bailey of Brownfield Developments of Toronto, on Hwy. 9 just east of Tottenham Road, and adjacent to Tecumseth Pines on protected Oak Ridges Moraine, Linkage II, land.
Read the whole article here
Halton Region Passes Unanimous Resolution to Legislate Against SLAPP Suits
In a unanimous 20-0 vote, Halton Region Councillors voted to send a message to Premier Kathleen Wynne, asking that she re-introduce Bill 83, An Act to Amend the Courts of Justice Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest. The Resolution reads in part: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton advise the newly elected Premier of the Province of Ontario, the Honourable Kathleen Wynne, and its local members of Provincial Legislative Assembly of its support for the protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 and request that Bill 83 be re-introduced forthwith in the Legislature"
The Resolution was most likely adopted in response to two recent events: Members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition (and Donnelly Law clients) were SLAPPed with a $100,000 defamation lawsuit for speaking out against continued dumping of large amounts of fill, contrary to Burlington’s by-laws; and Burlington Council recently also unanimously adopted a Resolution asking Queen’s Park to make anti-SLAPP legislation a priority for the new session.
Read the recent article in the Hamilton Spectator found here.
Ontario Court of Appeal Rejects Appeal, City of Burlington Can Enforce Fill By-law and Protect the Environment
Burlington Airpark Inc. (“Airpark”) is the owner and operator of the Burlington Executive Airport, an aerodrome, located in the City of Burlington within the Protected Countryside Area of the Greenbelt Plan and adjacent to the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area. For over five (5) years, Airpark has been bringing substantial quantities of fill onto their property to build up their runway.
In the spring of 2013, the City of Burlington issued an order to Airpark to comply with fill by-law 6-2003. The City of Burlington by-law 6-2003 states:
"No person shall place or dump fill on or alter the grade of any lands in the City without having first obtained a Site Alteration Permit. A person applying for a Permit must certify that the fill contains no contaminants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act. An applicant for a permit must submit a Control Plan, certified by an Ontario professional engineer. The City may also require random testing of any fill before it is placed on the site or removed on it."
The City of Burlington had concerns with the amount of fill deposited, adverse drainage effects from the imposition of gradient and slope changes, and possibility for contamination by pollutants entering area groundwater.
Airpark refused to comply with City of Burlington by-law 6-2003 arguing that they fell under federal jurisdiction and thus were not obligated to comply with municipal by-laws.
In the fall of 2013 the City of Burlington filed an application with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice requesting:
a)An order determining Burlington’s rights under the Municipal Act 2001, SO 2001c. and the Constitution act, 1867 to enforce by-laws relating to fill operations at an aerodrome operated by the respondent;
b)A declaration that Burlington’s by-law 6-2003 is valid and binding upon the respondent in respect to its activities at the airport; and
c)An order requiring the respondent to comply with the by-law forthwith.
The Ontario Superior Court held that municipal by-laws regarding fill do not intrude onto Parliament’s core jurisdiction over aeronautics and are thus applicable. In Justice Murray’s November 13, 2013 decision he states at paragraph 19:
"There is little doubt that the runway construction must comply with the federal specifications relating to slopes, surfaces of runways, runway shoulders and the slopes and strength or runway shoulders. However, requiring Airpark to use clean fill regulated by the municipality for the benefit of other residents in the municipality will not be permanently reflected in the structure of the finished product in the sense meant by Justice Beetz. The by-law is not an attempt by the municipality to regulate slopes or surfaces of runways, runway shoulders or the slopes and strength of runway shoulders. While regulating the quality of fill may have an impact on the manner of carrying out a decision to build airport facilities in accordance with federal specifications, such regulations will not have any direct effect upon the operational qualities or suitability of the finished product which will be used for purposes of aeronautics."
On June 11, 2014 the Superior Court of Justice heard argument regarding the appeal from Burlington Airpark Inc. of the decision of Justice Murray of the Superior Court of Justice. Donnelly Law attended the hearing.
The Superior Court decision in the Burlington Airpark Inc. matter was rendered on November 13, 2013 by Justice Murray. In his decision, Justice Murray states that compliance with the Burlington by-law will not impair federal aeronautics power or create an operational conflict between the provisions of the by-laws and federal aeronautics power. The appeal raised the question whether the City of Burlington fill by-law is a significant and serious intrusion into Parliament’s core jurisdiction over aeronautics.
Burlington Airpark Inc.’s lawyer, Mr. Peter Wells, presented his case addressing the following main points:
1.Justice Murray failed to properly apply inter-jurisdictional immunity;
2.Making the City of Burlington By-law applicable to the Airpark would effectively prevent or control the airport construction which is outside of the jurisdiction of the municipality.
Mr. Wells then argued a motion for leave to adduce additional evidence. This evidence was deemed to be irrelevant to the issue before the Court and was dismissed.
Once Mr. Wells completed his submission to the Court, the court recessed for 10 minutes. Upon returning, Counsel for the City of Burlington, Mr. Ian Blue, was informed that the Court did not need to hear oral submission from him but merely wanted to ask him one question. Justice Simmons asked Mr. Blue what the intention of the by-law was. Mr. Blue answered that the intention of the City of Burlington has always been the monitoring of fill on the site with respect to contamination. The City of Burlington has not nor is it interested in regulating the slopes grade or other aspects of the construction of the Airpark runway.
The Court recessed for another 10 minutes and returned with its final decision. The decision was rendered orally by Justice McPherson who first thanked counsel for their helpful and well written facta. Justice McPherson rendered an oral decision stating that the Court did not agree with Mr. Well’s argument and would uphold the decision of Justice Murray dismissing the appeal.
Donnelly Law on the Recent Oak Ridges Moraine Victory
On January 27, 2014, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) denied a planning application submitted by Mr. Peter Eliopoulos to allow a massive outdoor wedding/banquet facility in King Township in the Countryside Area of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (the “ORMCP”). The decision was featured in the Toronto Star, with David Donnelly saying: “Putting large-scale, car-dependent commercial activities in some of the most beautiful and natural country in southern Ontario would have been a big mistake,” said lawyer David Donnelly, who represented local residents at the OMB hearing. “If you believe that King Township is horse country and not paintball country, then this is a big decision for the Oak Ridges Moraine.”
The parking lot alone would host up to 600 people plus staff, making it the largest parking lot in King Township. The banquet and wedding proposal included three garden areas with tent-like structures (solid floors and three solid sides). The outdoor event/banquet facility would be operated by a business that runs several other event venues with package deals for weddings and bar mitzvahs.
The property, at 3550 18th Sideroad, King Township, has been the subject of controversy for years. Over many years, a long canal and pond were bulldozed on the site, in contravention of the Township’s Site Alteration By-law, creating a “water feature” that extends over one kilometre-long and is estimated to have the same capacity as 14 Olympic size swimming pools! The property was downgraded from Prime Agricultural to Rural in 2013.
King Township Council voted unanimously on August 26, 2013 to oppose the application. The Stewards of the Moraine (the "Stewards") was also opposed to the application, and received party status at the OMB.
The Oak Ridges Moraine, one of Ontario’s most significant landforms, is protected by the ecologically-based ORMCP. The Stewards is pleased by the decision of the OMB that halted in its tracks an inappropriate development that could have set a dangerous precedent for more inappropriate development on the Moraine, just a few short months before Ontario begins its mandatory review of the ORMCP.
The OMB hearing focused only on whether the outdoor banquet facility was permitted by the ORMCP i.e. is the outdoor banquet facility a “major recreational use”? The ORMCP defines major recreational use as “recreational uses that require large-scale modification of terrain, vegetation or both and usually also require large-scale buildings or structures, including but not limited to the following: golf courses, serviced playing fields, serviced campgrounds, and ski hills.”
The OMB heard three days of expert planning evidence from three planners, including Mr. Robert Lehman, a highly respected planner with more than 40 years’ experience, on behalf of the Stewards. The planners focused on one key question: can a wedding be considered a major recreational use?
The Applicant’s professional planner, Mr. Jim Dyment, MCIP, RPP, testified in his evidence that a wedding is a “recreational activity”. Under cross-examination by the Stewards’ lawyer, Mr. David Donnelly, Mr. Dyment stated that a wide variety of activities could be construed as “recreation”, including dating, courting, playing cards, sitting in quiet meditation or even attending a book club can be considered “recreation” per the definition in section 6 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. The planners for King Township and the Stewards held a different opinion: the proposed use was predominantly commercial and not recreational. Mr. Gerrit de Boer, a lay witness for the Stewards, shared this opinion and was quoted in the OMB Eliopoulos decision at paragraphs 19 to 21:
"A wedding is a celebration of life where two people commit to each other by taking vows. It is not recreational. And I would have never gone out with my wife if her father thought going out on a date was a major recreational event."
The OMB summed up Mr. Boer’s evidence as follows:
"It was Mr. de Boer's contention that the proposal represented a commercial venture of a type that would not be allowed under the ORMCP. While Mr. de Boer was not an expert witness on land use planning, or even weddings, the Board found his observations interesting.
The OMB agreed with Mr. de Boer, the Stewards and King Township: “the proposed banquet/wedding/event facility is not a recreational use as anticipated by the Province in the ORMCP” (Eliopoulos Decision at paragraph 31).
While this may seem like an academic debate over a simple definition, approval of the Eliopoulos outdoor banquet facility could have had profound consequences for the Oak Ridges Moraine. If this outdoor banquet facility were approved under the guise of being “recreational”, it could open the door to a whole suite of development applications that the ORMCP did not anticipate in the Countryside Area. To the Stewards’ very great surprise, some in King Township consider the definition of “major recreational use” to be very broad. The Applicant’s planner, Mr. James Dyment, seemed to argue that paintball, go-carts, laser tag and other borderline outdoor recreational pursuits could be permitted in the ORMCP Area as major recreational uses.
This is not what the drafters of the ORMCP had in mind when they put the intent of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 into regulation i.e. the ORMCP, to protect farmland, headwaters and foster growth in suitable areas.
The clear intent of the ORMCP is to limit uses and the intensity of uses in the ORMCP Area. Any exceptions to the list should only be granted in very narrow and clearly analogous cases e.g. downhill vs. cross-country skiing. The purposes of the ORMCP include protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area, ensuring the Area is maintained as a continuous natural landform and environment for the benefit of present and future generations, and providing for continued development within existing urban settlement areas. The Eliopoulos OMB decision reinforces the strict conservation mandate of the ORMCP.
This case is also a cautionary tale, decided before the ORMCP 2015 review kicks into high gear. On December 6, 2013, after the hearing, the Stewards wrote to King Township, commenting on the current Official Plan review as follows:
Given the different views on “recreation” and “major recreational use”, it would be prudent for the Township to bring greater specificity to recreational policies in the ORMCP Area through its Official Plan Review. To ensure the Township remains an “idyllic community of communities” over time, the Township should define permissible recreational uses and strengthen its recreational policies, keeping in mind subsection 8(2) of the Act, which allows the Township to be more restrictive than the ORMCP in its Official Plan.
The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 subsection 8(2) allows municipalities to adopt stricter policies for environmental protection of the Moraine.
The ORMCP 2015 Review will provide an opportunity to reconsider what types of development should be permitted on the Oak Ridges Moraine. In so doing, Moraine advocates must ensure their voices are heard, loud and clear. The Stewards hopes this victory before the OMB is the start of a successful ORMCP Review.
OMB Victory on the Oak Ridges Moraine in the Toronto Star
Environmentalists cheer Oak Ridges Moraine decision
Rachel Mendelson
The Toronto Star
February 11, 2014
“Putting large-scale, car-dependent commercial activities in some of the most beautiful and natural country in southern Ontario would have been a big mistake,” said lawyer David Donnelly, who represented local residents at the OMB hearing. “If you believe that King Township is horse country and not paintball country, then this is a big decision for the Oak Ridges Moraine.”
Read the Toronto Star article on this victory achieved by Donnelly Law’s client the Stewards of the Moraine Inc., here.
Victory for the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Environment
On January 27, 2014, the Ontario Municipal Board (the "OMB") issued its most recent decision involving lands in the protected Oak Ridges Moraine Plan Area in King Township (Case Number PL130137). The hearing involved an Official Plan Amendment and zoning by-law application to rezone land in the Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area , to permit an outdoor banqueting facility, a children's camp and related accessory uses. Donnelly Law represented the Stewards of the Moraine Inc. (the "Stewards"), a party opposed to this application. The OMB decision considers whether the proposal to use three garden areas, with tent-like structures at each garden, as an outdoor banquet facility is a "major recreational use" according to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (the "ORMCP") and consistent with the definition of recreation in the Provincial Policy Statement (the "PPS").
Member Sylvia Sutherland dismissed the appeal. The OMB agreed with the Stewards' planner, Mr. Robert Lehman, that the "proposed banquet/wedding/event facility is not a recreational use as anticipated by the Province in the ORMCP." (Paragraph 31) The Board also referred to the evidence of a lay witness for the Stewards, a member with a large family and a lot of experience at weddings, noting his observations on the application were "interesting", including the following testimony:
"A wedding is a celebration of life where two people commit to each other by taking vows. It is not recreational. And I would never have gone out with my wife if her father thought going out on a date was a major recreational event[.]" (Paragraph 19)
You can read the decision here: 2014 01 28 OMB Decision - Eliopoulos .
You can read more about the case from YorkRegion.com.
David Donnelly on CBC Radio: Aggregate Pits in Ontario's North
On Friday, December 13, 2013, David Donnelly was interviewed by CBC Thunder Bay. Residents and property owners outside Thunder Bay are asking Taranis Construction to reduce its operating hours and noise at a new gravel pit.
"In the north it seems to be open season on putting these pits in where in many cases either don't belong, or the operators should be more responsive to local concerns,?" said David Donnelly, legal counsel for the Toronto-based Environmental Defence group.
Click here to listen to David's interview with CBC Thunder Bay on action residents could take, including calling the local Ministry of the Environment office. Listen to an interview with a local resident and read more about this situation from the residents' point of view here.
Greenbelt Watch: Oak Ridges Moraine Hearing
Donnelly Law's next hearing is set to begin November 25, 2013 in King Township. Here is a bit of background, published in Environmental Defence's Greenbelt Watch newsletter. The Ontario Municipal Board is set to hear an important case regarding whether to allow future development on the Oak Ridges Moraine, beginning November 23, 2013. The hearing will take place in King Township, the site of a proposed 600-person outdoor banquet/event facility, bed and breakfast, and children’s camp for 200 campers. The proposal was unanimously rejected by King Township Council in August 2013. The Township will now appear alongside the Stewards of the Moraine Inc. (the “Stewards”), a local residents group, in opposition to the project. STORM is a participant in the hearing. The site, at Highway 400 and Lloydtown-Aurora Road, is designated Countryside Area in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”). The site has been a source of controversy for years, ever since the land was altered without any permits beginning in 2002. Topsoil was removed and a series of hills bulldozed into place, creating a “water feature”, with a pond and approximately one kilometre long.
The Township of King and the Stewards will argue the banquet facility is commercial development, not a “major recreational” facility as defined in the ORMCP. The Stewards are also concerned with road safety from the projected increase in traffic, and noise from the dance floors of three wedding receptions late on summer evenings. David Donnelly (Donnelly Law), counsel to the Stewards, comments “The connection between the children’s camp and banquet facility has not been established. How can a children’s camp be entitled to a liquor licence?”
Stewards of the Moraine in the Toronto Star
King residents oppose banquet facility on Oak Ridges Moraine
Rachel Mendelson
The Toronto Star
August 25, 2013
"A controversial proposal to build a banquet facility on prime agricultural land on the Oak Ridges Moraine could test the limits of the protections in place for southern Ontario’s so-called “rain barrel.”"
Read the Toronto Star article on this proposal, opposed by Donnelly Law's client the Stewards of the Moraine Inc., here.
Donnelly Law Client Pleased with Favourable Planning Report
Stewards pleased Township on their side
Mark Pavilons for the King Weekly Sentinel
August 20, 2013
The Stewards of the Moraine Inc. are pleased with recommendations by King Township staff to refuse a bid for a rural banquet facility in the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan Area. Click here to read more about the Stewards of the Moraine's reaction to the Township Planning Report in the latest edition of the King Weekly Sentinel.
Hall Proposal in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Area Draws Ire
By: Simon Martin News Reporter, King Connection
Published on Friday August 09 2013
Donnelly Law clients vow to fight banquet hall proposed for lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Read the full article here: http://www.yorkregion.com/news-story/4040057-king-township-group-fights-proposed-banquet-hall/
Environmentalists split on green energy projects
News Reporter, Toronto Star
Published on Thursday August 08 2013
Cindy Sutch, who lives amid the rolling hills of the Oak Ridges Moraine, about 45 kilometres northeast of Oshawa, is a vocal advocate for the preservation of southern Ontario’s “rain barrel.”
And like most environmentalists, she also supports efforts to reduce the province’s reliance on fossil fuels.
But recently, a handful of wind energy projects proposed for the moraine have thrown this pair of ordinarily simpatico beliefs into conflict.
Read the full article here:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/08/05/environmentalists_split_on_green_energy_projects.html
Wind Turbines and Health: No Evidence for Concern
Wind Energy Wins Against Wind Energy Opponents Click on the link above to read a short article by Donnelly Law on appeals of wind farm renewable energy approvals alleging serious harm to human health. This article is published in the May 2013 Bluffs Advocate (http://www.bluffsadvocate.ca/).
Niagara Escarpment quarry fight before judicial review
Environmentalists are anxiously awaiting a potentially precedent-setting verdict in a fierce conflict over a proposed quarry on protected Niagara Escarpment lands south of Collingwood, not far from the picturesque Blue Mountains.
The case, which began with Walker Industries’ initial application nearly a decade ago, is now before a judicial review, with a decision expected in the coming months. If approved, some warn it will tip the balance toward those who wish to exploit the riches of the escarpment — and undermine the protections put in place 30 years ago to preserve it.
“Protection of the escarpment began because of the growth of the aggregate industry,” said Ruth Grier, former NDP environment minister and local resident. “This is one example that shows there are huge loopholes in that protection.”
Read the full article here:
NEC argues quarry doesn't meet terms of escarpment plan
TORONTO — A one-day hearing held Thursday could determine the fate of the proposed quarry expansion west of Duntroon. The Niagara Escarpment Commission voted last August to challenge the decision of the Consolidated Hearings Board decision that allowed Walker Aggregates to expand its quarry operation.
The initial hearing lasted 139 days over a 13-month period and ended last June in a 2-1 decision in favour of the expansion.
Thursday’s judicial review hearing was held in Osgoode Hall courtroom three in front of a three-judge panel: Justices Tom Lederer, Katherine Swinton, Renee Pomerance. The judges have reserved their ruling whether to uphold, amend, or overturn the Consolidated Hearings Board decision.
Read the full article here:
Escarpment Blues: Legal Battle to Stop a Massive Quarry Continues
David Donnelly comments on the precedent-setting case to be argued tomorrow to ensure the Niagara Escarpment is protected. Read it here: http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog/escarpment-blues-legal-battle-stop-massive-quarry-continues
Donnelly Law in the Ontario Bar Association's Environews
Read Donnelly Law's article discussing two recent quarry decisions in the Niagara Escarpment in the latest edition of Environews, the newsletter of the Ontario Bar Association Environmental Law Section. The link to the full article follows this exerpt. "Two recent decisions of the Joint Board pursuant to the Consolidated Hearings Act1 create a very confusing legal landscape, with the future direction of development approvals on the Niagara Escarpment hanging in the balance. Very similar facts and arguments in both hearings led to very disparate decisions and a potentially precedent-setting judicial review application by of one of the decisions the Niagara Escarpment Commission ("NEC").
In Walker Aggregates Inc.("Walker"), the proponent applied for approval of a 42 million tonne quarry on the highest point of the Niagara Escarpment in the Township of Clearview, near the village of Duntroon. Donnelly Law represented the Clearview Community Coalition ("CCC"), a citizens’ group opposed to the new quarry. CCC summonsed the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario to provide evidence on the protection of natural heritage features, Ministry of Natural Resources ("MNR") policy, and planning principles.
In Nelson Aggregate Co. ("Nelson"), the proponent applied to quarry approximately 26 million tonnes on Mount Nemo, in the City of Burlington. We represented Sarah Harmer’s citizens’ organization, Protecting Escarpment Rural Land ("PERL").
Both hearings spanned over a year, with hundreds of exhibits, and dozens upon dozens of expert witnesses. In both cases, the NEC, local Conservation Authorities and citizens’ groups opposed the respective quarries. In the case of Nelson, PERL was joined by Halton Region and the City of Burlington in opposition. In both cases, the MNR withdrew its opposition to the development proposals just before the hearings commenced. The MNR’s tacit support of the two quarries sets up a new debate between the NEC and MNR over who has the final word on the protection of the Escarpment.
Read the full article here: http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_env_dec12_Quarrying_Donnelly_Sabourin.pdf
Blue Shark Skates to Save the Porbeagle
Torontonians Show their Support at Nathan Phillips Square
Toronto-- Hector the Blue Shark appeared today for a skate on Toronto’s favourite outdoor rink in Nathan Phillips Square. The spokesfish for the Friends of Hector campaign came to ask Torontonians to send a message to Canada’s government: stop obstructing international efforts to protect the endangered porbeagle shark.
The porbeagle spends much of its life in Canadian waters, and is often referred to as “Canada’s shark”.
Hector skated to raise awareness that Canada is the only country in the world that maintains a directed fishery of this endangered species, and to protest further shark finning.
At the 18th Special Meeting of the International Committee for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) November 12th-19th, 2012, Canada was the only country out of 48 Member States to maintain a directed fishery for the porbeagle shark. In fact, Canada single-handedly blocked the consensus of the 47 other countries to stop fishing.
Over 20,000 Canadians sent letters to Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Gail Shea, expressing outrage at Canada’s position.
“The Atlantic-wide ban, proposed by the EU at the 2012 ICAAT meeting, would have given the slow-to-reproduce shark the best chance to recover and help close loopholes allowing porbeagle fishing in international waters”, said Shannon Arnold, Marine Program Coordinator of the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax. “We hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will now take the decisive action Canadians demand.”
“The shark fin ban is another proud moment in Toronto’s history of speaking out against dumb policy, whether it’s women’s right to vote or the 1992 northern cod stock collapse. Protecting the porbeagle shark is another chapter in the world-wide shark ecology movement”, said David Donnelly, principal at Donnelly Law.
On October 25, 2011, City Council enacted a by-law prohibiting the possession, sale and consumption of shark fin or shark fin food products within the City of Toronto. The shark fin by-law, banning the consumption, sale and possession of shark fin or shark fin products, was declared invalid by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on November 30, 2012.
Background
The porbeagle shark spends most of its life in Canadian waters, from northern Newfoundland and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Research has tracked the precipitous decline by up to 89% in Canadian waters. Even without fishing, the porbeagle shark will take decades to recover to previous population levels.
The porbeagle shark was assessed as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not follow the advice of this expert committee to list the porbeagle as endangered under the Species at Risk Act. Canada is the only country in the Atlantic that maintains a directed fishery of this endangered species. Fishing for porbeagles is banned in the European Union and the Mediterranean Sea.
Canada also allows hundreds of porbeagles to be landed as bycatch in fisheries that target other fish like swordfish and tuna. In 2010, the total bycatch of porbeagle sharks was approximately 60 tonnes, three times the amount captured by Canada’s direct fishery.
For more information contact:
Shannon Arnold, Ecology Action Centre, 902-446-4840, sharnold@ecologyaction.ca
David Donnelly, Donnelly Law, 416-722-0220, david@donnellylaw.ca
Anti-SLAPP Bill launched in Ontario: A Big Step Forward for Democratic Rights in the Province
Toronto - Today, environmental groups applauded a proposed new law that would allow Ontario citizens to speak out to protect the environment and their health without fear of damaging lawsuits meant to intimidate them. Yasir Naqvi, Member of Provincial Parliament for Ottawa Centre, today tabled a private member’s bill – the Protection of Public Participation Act - that targets Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are civil suits of dubious merit, generally intended to censor, intimidate or silence critics and prevent individuals from voicing concerns about public interest issues. Often in the form of defamation suits, they stifle citizen participation in public decision-making.
"These suits impede public participation in the democratic process and expose SLAPP victims to unnecessary financial and emotional costs," said Hugh Wilkins, staff lawyer with Ecojustice. "Ontario is stronger when its citizens can exercise their right to clean land, air and water without fear of a SLAPP."
These types of lawsuits have been used when citizens report environmental violations, file complaints with government agencies, work to educate the public about an issue, or speak at a public meeting. In 2010, the Attorney General convened an expert advisory panel that strongly recommended the enactment of anti-SLAPP legislation. The bill tabled today adopts the recommendations of that panel, which include a faster process for dismissing SLAPPs, strong disincentives for initiating them, and guidelines for judges on how to address them.
The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario Bar Association have all called for anti-SLAPP legislation.
"When a company sues an organization or individual in order to intimidate them, we all lose. Ontario needs people unafraid to advocate for a healthier and more vibrant society," said Shane Moffatt, a campaigner with Greenpeace Canada.
"Lawsuits without merit that are meant to bully people from exercising their rights must be stopped," said Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. "There is no place for that type of conduct in our society."
SLAPPs are on the rise in Ontario. An example was the almost $150 million in lawsuits filed against multiple opponents of the Big Bay Point mega-marina, in Innisfil, on Lake Simcoe. All the suits were either dropped or dismissed by the courts for inactivity, with costs against the developer.
"Ontario residents’ rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights are violated every time a SLAPP chills a fair and open environmental decision-making process," said David Donnelly, counsel to Environmental Defence. "Many jurisdictions in North America have banned SLAPPs after having to put up with frivolous cases that never reached a judge or jury," Donnelly added.
"Anti-SLAPP legislation will save costs for the justice system by ensuring the early dismissal of these meritless lawsuits," said Ramani Nadarajah of the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA). "The private member's bill will protect citizens and groups who are engaging in public debate and is vital to Ontario's democracy."