Province Says "No" to Carlisle Quarry
St. Mary's Cement loses escarpment bid
April 13, 2010
Eric McGuinness, Hamilton Spectator
Astonished community leaders were “ecstatic” Tuesday after MPP Ted McMeekin announced the province had issued an unprecedented order halting St. Marys Cement’s attempt to open a massive limestone quarry on a 15-hectare site in the former town of Flamborough.
McMeekin said the province was responding to widespread concern about potential harm to groundwater supplying wells, wetlands and streams.
The order declares the site must remain zoned “rural and conservation management” in perpetuity.
The province’s decision is a victory for Friends of Rural Communities Everywhere (FORCE), a well-organized citizens group that argued the plan posed an unacceptable threat to environmentally sensitive land and the water beneath it.
It’s a huge setback for St. Marys, Canadian subsidiary of the Brazilian giant Votorantim Cimentos, and for Ontario’s politically powerful stone, sand and gravel industry, which strives to keep land available for aggregate extraction. St. Marys says it spent $20 million on efforts to rezone the property and obtain a quarry licence.
A small crowd burst into applause as the MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale delivered the news outside his Waterdown riding office Tuesday.
Hamilton Ward 15 Councillor Margaret McCarthy, who is leaving office this fall, couldn’t contain her joy and tears streamed down her face. A passionate foe of the project for six years, she said, “It’s very nice, having come so far, having it end like this before I leave.”
Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller, who has long urged the government to screen out unsuitable sites early, said, “This is a really significant decision, because large quarry applications have always been approved” if the companies went through a planning process that can take 10 years.
He argued in a 2006-07 report that an approval process is not legitimate if applications are never turned down.
“The policy hasn’t changed yet,” he said yesterday, “but this brings us one step closer to a world where we can come to a decision early with less effort.”
McMeekin said ministerial zoning orders have been used three times before: to stop Toronto from dumping garbage in the Adams mine in Northern Ontario, to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine and to protect the Marcy’s Woods Nature Reserve on Lake Erie.
John Moroz, vice-president and general manager of St. Marys, said his company believes the government made a grave error. “St Marys expects to conduct business in Ontario within a regulatory framework that is clear and reasonable, and on that basis has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in this province. Given the strong economic and social potential of the Flamborough Quarry, and our investment to date, we have no choice but to examine our legal options.”
McMeekin said the company has 30 days to appeal, then the province has 30 days to declare a provincial interest in the issue. If it does, the appeal would be decided by Cabinet.
Besides FORCE, the quarry was strongly opposed by Hamilton, Halton, Burlington and Milton councils, medical officers of health, conservation authorities, school boards, farm groups and the Ontario Environment Ministry.
(http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/794780--quarry-plan-killed-after-six-year-fight)
Greenbelt community up in arms over gas-fired power plant
King township is using the province's own Greenbelt legislation in a last-ditch attempt to fight the generator
Anna Mehler Paperny
Toronto — From Globe and Mail Published on Tuesday, Apr. 06, 2010
The province is selling out on vaunted green space that Premier Dalton McGuinty vowed to protect, argues a community taking on a proposed gas-fired power plant
in the middle of Ontario's Greenbelt.
And tiny King township is using the province's own Greenbelt legislation in a last-ditch attempt to fight the generator.
“I find it completely ironic that we’re having to defend provincial legislation and provincial rules and regulations against another provincial ministry,” said Jamie Reaume, head of the Holland Marsh Growers Association.
He represents farmers in Holland Marsh – the bowl-like flood plain, vegetable patch of Ontario and what he calls one of the most heavily regulated pieces of land in the province.
It's also 500 metres away from the proposed 350-megawatt gas-fired power plant the Ontario Power Authority wants to see completed by 2014. That power is needed – immediately – to satisfy a growing, energy-thirsty population in northern York Region, the power authority argues.
But the plant would also be the first in Ontario's Greenbelt, whose fifth anniversary the province celebrated this year. And its vocal opponents argue the province isn't following its own strict rules designed to preserve that increasingly rare green space. So they have to.
A hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board, a provincial mediator that normally settles development disputes between local governments and third parties, starts Tuesday. The board will determine whether the power plant’s site plan should go ahead and, more crucially, whether the plans contravene the province’s own Greenbelt legislation.
The OPA argues that there’s nowhere else to put what they say is a much-needed “peaker” generator to address spikes in the energy needs of a regional population growing far more rapidly than the rest of the province.
The relatively clean gas-fired technology is becoming increasingly popular as the province tries to make good on its vow to eliminate coal-fired generators while putting planned nuclear expansions and refurbishments on hold. They’re also a significant part of the Green Energy Act, which has won environmental accolades continent-wide.
King township’s mayor Margaret Black argues that the plant won’t help her residents and could indeed go elsewhere. Moreover, she argues the proposal would violate the province’s own Greenbelt plan, which has strict criteria for the kind of infrastructure development allowed to encroach on the protected rural and agricultural areas.
Farmers and residents in the area aren’t satisfied with the environmental assessment that gave Pristine Energy’s project a stamp of approval: The proposed plant is too close for comfort to a flood plain and to Holland Marsh’s rich agricultural areas.
But environmental lawyer David Donnelly says whether or not the plant violates the law of Ontario’s Greenbelt, it violates the principle of keeping a small part of southern Ontario wild.
“Every time you nibble at the footprint of the Greenbelt, you undermine its integrity. This plant won’t destroy the Greenbelt, but it undermines the sacred principle that we preserve outright a very small part of southern Ontario called the Greenbelt. And this violates that. And, worse, it’s unnecessary.”
King Township has been opposed to the very idea of building in the Greenbelt since the province put out a request for proposals in January, 2008. The latest stage in its battle is in many ways a last resort: Now that the project has passed the province’s environmental assessment, said Ontario Power Authority spokesman Ben Chin, the only thing standing in the way of construction is the building permit the city has refused to grant.
The provincial Greenbelt plan stipulates that any infrastructure built in a designated area must serve the local community and economy, minimize negative effects and must be without viable alternatives.
Ms. Black said that’s not the case now: If the region needs a power plant that badly, she argues, it should be in an existing industrial area.
But Mr. Chin said the northern York Region’s population is growing faster than the rest of the province, and the power authority has no leeway when it comes to picking a location.
“The northern York Region is below international standards in terms of system security or reliability in terms of their transmission lines. … When you have a local area that’s not stable it puts the entire area around it at risk,” he said. “The government’s Greenbelt legislation allows for new generators to supply communities within the Greenbelt.”
“Peaker” power plants are rarely popular with local residents: One need only look to ongoing battles over similar generators in Oakville and Leslieville. Opponents of power plants designed to be of use only 10 to 15 per cent of the time when demand is greatest, point to dipping recessionary energy use. Even with the economy picking up, they argue, historical energy-use trends will stop their upward climb as energy efficiency grows.
Challenges to restrictive Greenbelt legislation aren’t new, either. But this case is different, Mr. Donnelly said: In those cases, the province stepped in to defend the preserved parkland.
“If you can put a gas-fired plant in the Greenbelt, then what about a waste transfer station? What about an EMS emergency station? It emboldens future regimes that might not be as sympathetic to the Greenbelt to point to this as an instance where people were willing to compromise something the public certainly felt was untouchable.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/greenbelt-community-up-in-arms-over-gas-fired-power-plant/article1524402/?cmpid=tgc
Top of the Niagara Escarpment under Siege
National environmental group supports call for a time-out on massive hearings in Ontario's Greenbelt
Toronto – Environmental Defence is joining forces with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Clearview Community Coalition and Protecting Escarpment Rural Land (PERL) to protect the Niagara Escarpment, which is under threat from two proposed quarries. One quarry, proposed by Walker Aggregates Inc., was already proposed for Duntroon, Ontario near Collingwood, when plans for yet another quarry only 600 metres away, was announced by M.A.Q. Aggregates last week.
“Clearly, there is no coordination or assessment of the cumulative effects of these two proposed quarries. The Duntroon Quarry license application itself is a serious test case for protecting the Niagara Escarpment, the Greenbelt and Ontario’s freshwater resources,” said Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence. "Taken together, these two proposed quarries could cause significant environmental damage."
The more imminent of the two new quarries proposed near the tiny hamlet of Duntroon is scheduled for a joint Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) hearing starting on April 12, 2010. Without consulting residents, however, a settlement has been negotiated between Walker Aggregates Inc., Simcoe County and Clearview Township which, in part, transfers a portion of County Road 91 from Simcoe County to Clearview Township for future closure. This agreement was apparently approved ‘in camera’ by Clearview Township on February 10, 2010, then discussed again ‘in camera’ and approved by Simcoe County Council on February 25, 2010. As a result, Simcoe County and Clearview Township are now in favour of Walker Aggregates’ quarry proposal.
The site of the Walker Aggregates’ application is located just steps away from the highest point of the Niagara Escarpment, which is an amazing complex from an environmental perspective. The new quarry would result in the permanent removal of 40.5 ha of significant woodland, which contain precious interior forest and provides for contiguous animal habitat. Protection of endangered butternut trees and a world-class colony of American Hart’s Tongue Fern would be left to a strategy called isolation, and experts are sceptical that this strategy would work. The colony of Hart’s Tongue Fern under threat is greater in number than the sum of all colonies outside of Canada.
Walker Industries has already been quarrying the Duntroon Escarpment since 1968 and is now proposing to quarry for another 14 to 29 years and to more than double the current annual rate of extraction to 2.5 million tonnes.
“The agreements between Walker Aggregates Inc. and the municipalities of Clearview and Simcoe have done little to reduce community impacts and nothing to reduce the impacts on the Niagara Escarpment,” said Janet Gillham, President of the Clearview Community Coalition and a local resident who is outraged by the negative impacts to local communities and by the prospect of continued destruction of the Niagara Escarpment, a valued local natural heritage feature and a World Biosphere Reserve.
“The Walker quarry proposal and Niagara Escarpment Plan re-designation application has been revised more times than we can count, yet the current designation on the site hasn’t been updated since the Trudeau years,” said David Donnelly, legal counsel to Environmental Defence and Clearview Community Coalition.
The newly announced 30-million-tonne M.A.Q. Aggregates quarry proposed in Grey County, which was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board last week, would be directly across the road from the Walker Aggregates quarry. The site is in the center of the Rob Roy Provincially Significant Wetland complex. Species potentially impacted include the special-concern Canada Warbler and the Western Chorus Frog. Despite close proximity of these two proposed quarries, it is not clear whether the cumulative effects of the two quarries have been adequately evaluated.
Clearview Community Coalition is a member of the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, a coalition of more than 80 environmental, health and community groups dedicated to protecting Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt.
About Environmental Defence: Environmental Defence protects the environment and human health. We research. We educate. We go to court when we have to, all in order to ensure clean air, safe food and thriving ecosystems. Nationwide. http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/
For more information, or to arrange interviews, please contact: Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521 (cell) Janet Gillham, President, Clearview Community Coalition, (705) 445-6095
Earthroots and Timmins Residents Join in Eastern Cougar Fight
Ministry of Natural Resources and AbitibiBowater Clear-cut Endangered Species Habitat
Toronto—Ms. Patricia Del Guidice, a long-time resident of Timmins, Ontario and the environmental group Earthroots, filed an Application for Investigation under section 74 of Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights to save the Eastern Cougar, an endangered species in Ontario. With permission from the Ministry of Natural Resources (“MNR”), AbitibiBowater clear-cut in Block 60 of the Nighthawk Forest, despite multiple reported Eastern Cougar sightings and an admission by the MNR that it had little idea if denning sites would be affected by the cut.
“This is not a case where the MNR and the logging company have done a poor job of complying with the Ontario Endangered Species Act, this is a case of ignoring the Act altogether,” said Amber Ellis, executive director of Earthroots.
“The MNR and Abitibi should finally admit what it seems everyone else in Timmins knows – there are Cougars in the Nighthawk Forest and around Timmins itself that need consideration and protection,” Ellis added.
Endangered species habitat is protected from damage or destruction under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (“ESA”) and Eastern Cougars have been listed as an endangered species under provincial legislation for years. Habitat loss and human disturbance are cited as primary threats to the species’ recovery.
According to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (“ECO”), the number of Cougar sightings in Ontario has been steadily increasing, with approximately 500 reported sightings since 2002. There have been several sightings of the Eastern Cougar in the Nighthawk Forest reported to the MNR and the Nighthawk Forest has been identified as Eastern Cougar habitat. Yet, the MNR continues to formally reject claims that Cougars reside there.
In the Timmins area, recent sightings have been made from short distances by long-time Northern Ontario residents – witnesses who know the difference between a coyote and a cougar, as they would a dog from a cat – however, the MNR has been consistently ‘unable to verify reported sightings’. Consequently, forestry companies have not been implementing adequate habitat protection measures, if any, which is contributing to the lack of Eastern Cougar recovery in Ontario.
“The MNR attempted to verify reported Cougar sightings by placing cameras in the Nighthawk Forest during hunting season, when the area was full of activity. There were all-terrain vehicles, cars and trucks traveling throughout the area. There was also an abundance of gunshots. The likelihood of a sighting under these conditions is remote at best. We can only conclude that the MNR had no genuine interest in verifying the sightings,” said Patricia Del Guidice.
The forestry sector was required to comply with the ESA by June 30th, 2009; however, the MNR did not require Abitibi to amend its Forest Management Plan to provide for Eastern Cougar habitat identification and protection measures. In fact, the MNR granted Abitibi permission to clear-cut portions of the Nighthawk Forest as late as November 2009, despite Earthroots’ and Ms. Del Guidice’s efforts to advise them of their ongoing non-compliance with the ESA with respect to the Eastern Cougar.
After several failed attempts to secure a moratorium on logging to allow for proper Eastern Cougar monitoring, Ms. Del Guidice and Earthroots submitted an Application for Investigation to the ECO, alleging that the harvesting in the Nighthawk Forest has destroyed Eastern Cougar habitat and that the Forest Management Plan does not provide for Eastern Cougar habitat identification or protection – both clear contraventions of the ESA.
In the Nighthawk Forest and Timmins area, a cursory investigation by Donnelly Law turned up multiple sightings in 2008 and 2009 alone, none of which had been adequately verified by the MNR.
“If our clients are dissatisfied with the section 74 Investigation, they can challenge the license going forward or prosecute Abitibi for violating the Act,” said David Donnelly, counsel to the Applicants.
“It really boggles the mind that the Ontario government would further diminish its already fragile reputation for poor forest management practices by ignoring an important piece of legislation like the ESA,” Donnelly added.
For more information contact:
D. Donnelly, Donnelly Law A. Ellis, Earthroots P. Del Guidice, Applicant
Gravel Road Relocation Raises Troubling Questions
Gravel Road Relocation Raises Troubling Questions: Canadian Music Icon Seeks Protection of Fallsbrook Creek & Sawguin Creek Marsh
Canadian Music Icon Seeks Protection of Fallsbrook Creek & Sawguin Creek Marsh
Ameliasburgh—Area residents are challenging the relocation of a gravel access road on Gore Road near County Road 23 in Ameliasburgh, Prince Edward County. W. D. Harris Excavating Ltd. (“Harris”) applied to the County and the Ministry of Natural Resources for permission to relocate the road earlier this year and received approval by September 2009 without providing notice to affected residents.
The residents, led by Canadian music icon Bernie Finkelstein, the founder of True North Records and long-time manager of Bruce Cockburn, are concerned that the relocation of the road may adversely impact on Fallsbrook Creek, a significant flood plain that traverses the Harris property and drains into the Sawguin Creek Marsh.
“The Sawguin Creek Marsh, part of which sits on the southern edge of our property, stretches well beyond our borders and into the centre of the County. It’s considered one of the most significant wetlands in the province,” said Mr. Finkelstein, citing the Natural Heritage League who became interested in protecting the wetland complex in 1992.
“Although a portion of the marsh sits within our property line, I know that no one can ever truly own a wetland; it’s a shared natural resource. We do, however, take our responsibility as stewards of this significant natural feature seriously and we find it hard to believe that we were cut out of this process.”
The proposed relocation of this commercial road will be nearly 1,400 feet closer to Fallsbrook Creek. The environmental impacts of the road’s construction and use by gravel trucks on the Creek and Marsh are unclear, but neither the County nor the Ministry required Harris to assess these potential impacts prior to granting the approvals. In fact, the County accepted a sketch by Harris on its entrance permit application which labelled Fallsbrook Creek as a “drainage ditch”.
The quarry, operating in the area for decades, has a long and interesting history. In the 1980’s, residents successfully opposed a significant quarry expansion. In 1996, a proposal to relocate the access road next to Fallsbrook Creek was rejected. In both cases, the residents were notified by the County well in advance of any approvals being issued.
Strangely, the County appears to have revised its policy as it did not provide notice to residents about this proposed road relocation.
Elizabeth Gerrits, owner of the adjoining land, remembers previous battles. “In the past, the local community was always allowed to present its perspective on the impacts of proposed changes to the quarry, and decision-makers chose to keep the quarry and the road where they were. It is unclear why these well-considered decisions have been summarily overturned by sneaking this through without anyone in the community having a fair opportunity to speak on the issue,” said Gerrits.
“It’s bizarre. I now realize that the whole process occurred out of sight and without notice to any of us. I’m stunned,” said Mr. Finkelstein. Ms. Gerrits finds it unthinkable that the landscape is about to change. “For over two hundred years, the Redner family farm has been bordered by woods, streams and wetlands, not by a commercial road for gravel trucks.”
In general, an affected party’s procedural fairness rights include both a right to receive notice and the opportunity to state his/her case (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817). In this case, relocation of the Harris access road and road entrance means an increase in aggregate truck traffic near residents and the watercourses, which means increased dust, noise and vibration. These nuisances may adversely impact on the quiet enjoyment of the residents’ property, but they may equally compromise the integrity, features and functions of the Fallsbrook Creek, flood plain and Sawguin Creek Marsh. Given the importance of this decision to the residents, they were entitled to be notified and to make submissions to the County and the Ministry.
In granting the entrance permit, the County did not alert area residents. In granting an amendment to the quarry’s site plan, the Ministry decided to merely post an instrument on the EBR Registry for a 30-day commenting period. Since area residents did not receive notice of this application, they were unaware of the posting and therefore unable to submit comments in time. Merely posting an instrument proposal on the EBR website without notifying affected parties does not meet the standard of notice and participation rights to which the residents are entitled.
Mr. Finkelstein and others have now retained lawyer David Donnelly, NOW Magazine’s “Best Green Activist” for 2008 and recipient of Earth Day Canada’s “Hometown Hero” Award. “The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has commented several times that the Aggregate Resources Act is out of date – this is one of the worst examples that I have seen of excluding the public,” said Donnelly.
“We expect Prince Edward County to join Mr. Finkelstein and residents in closing this loophole and stopping the road,” Donnelly added.
Mr. Finkelstein and neighbours have now joined the fight to reform the Aggregate Resources Act, including stronger public notice provisions. The group would also like to grow the greenbelt in Prince Edward County and are determined to see a Green Gravel Standard for Ontario. Prince Edward County has been discovered by developers and needs protection like the Niagara Escarpment, Holland Marsh and the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
Residents anticipate an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on this issue in spring of 2010.
For more information: Bernie Finkelstein, 416-402-9937, bernie@finkelsteinmanagement.com David Donnelly, 416-722-0220, david@donnellylaw.ca
More Than 60 Ontario Groups Call For Protection From Lawsuits Designed to Muzzle
Demand grows for law to protect public participation in wake of recent suit against health advocates
Toronto – More than 60 Ontario groups released a letter to Premier McGuinty today asking him to move forward with a new law to protect citizens from lawsuits designed to stifle legitimate public participation in the democratic process. Such suits are often called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs.
"Many of us in the environmental movement have suffered when public participation in the democratic process was threatened," said Gideon Forman, Executive Director of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). "So we support anti-SLAPP legislation based on our first-hand experience."
Environmental Defence initiated the letter and had experience with a SLAPP itself when a partner group it works with was sued for opposing a development at Big Bay Point on Lake Simcoe.
"It's courageous enough for citizens and small organizations to stand up for what they think is right," said Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director of Environmental Defence, "But to be sued for participating in what is supposed to be a democracy? That's scary."
Many of the 60 signatories to the letter have experience with a SLAPP, which can put victims in the position of either backing down or losing everything. The letter to Premier McGuinty concludes that legislation is the best measure to protect Ontarians' rights: "As a community of organizations, we feel our democratic rights are threatened by the existence of SLAPP suits and insist that the only way to protect our right to public participation is through the creation of effective legislation."
Ontario would be joining Quebec, where similar legislation passed last year, and over half of American states that currently have anti-SLAPP laws.
Support for creating such laws has snowballed in recent months, notably with the release of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's Annual Report in October. Commissioner Gord Miller labeled SLAPPs a threat to public participation and called on the government to create effective laws to prevent them.
Shortly after, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario resolved to meet with the Ontario government to find solutions to prevent SLAPPs and to avoid undue costs placed on citizens in Ontario Municipal Board hearings. The Association acted after 62 municipalities, including Mississauga and Hamilton, passed resolutions calling for anti-SLAPP legislation, and requested the Association support them.
-30-
For more information, or to arrange interviews, please contact: Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521 (cell)
Environmental Defence: http://environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=738
Town Approves Tree Cutting at Big Bay Point
Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca)
Developer proceeding despite objection from Province and concerned residents
Toronto – The developer of the proposed Big Bay Point Mega-Marina is preparing to cut trees at the site despite opposition from the province and local citizens. Heavy machinery moved onto the site yesterday. Tree cutting is expected to begin soon, unless the province intervenes as requested by Environmental Defence and the Innisfil District Association (“IDA”).
Innisfil Council voted on January 27 to allow site alteration in the form of tree cutting at Big Bay Point. The vote appears to defy directions from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”), which has jurisdiction over Ontario municipalities.
The province sent a sharply worded letter on January 19, 2010 to the developer’s lawyers last week, advising that “provincial staff have identified provisions that must be satisfied before site alteration or development of the Big Bay Point resort lands can take place.”
Put plainly, the MMAH letter stated that the Big Bay Point project, including any tree cutting, cannot proceed until an environmental assessment has been completed to determine whether there will be sufficient capacity to collect and treat wastewater from the mega-marina. The environmental assessment would also need to show that the mega-marina would not directly or indirectly release phosphorus into Lake Simcoe.
The Ontario Municipal Board made clear in its 2007 ruling on Big Bay Point that that the Planning Act approval is conditional on the developer securing a large number of environmental approvals, some of which may never be obtained, for the construction of the 2,000 resort units, 1,000 slip mega-marina and commercial space.
Environmental Defence and the IDA have filed a legal brief with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the province last week advising that the proposed excavation of 30 acres of shoreline likely contravenes the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Conservation Authorities Act.
“The Big Bay Point Mega-Marina and unprecedented shoreline excavation would never be permitted if it were proposed today and may never be approved, so why the rush to cut the trees?” asked Environmental Defence counsel David Donnelly, citing the ban on new shoreline development under the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. “So if the project never proceeds, as we predict, why would anybody think it wise to cut increasingly rare shoreline forested area at this time”, Donnelly asked.
“Speaking as an area resident, I’m appalled that Innisfil Council is endorsing this tree cutting before the province has even approved any marina construction”, said Don Avery, past President of the IDA.
This new dispute follows closely on a complaint lodged with the Minister of Environment John Gerretsen for proceeding with public consultations under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Environmental Assessment with tens of millions of dollars in Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) suits outstanding against Big Bay Point opponents. The complaint states that:
Continuing these taxpayer funded public consultations in this climate of SLAPP suits is unacceptable. We note that this phenomenon has proliferated under your government. We call your attention to the Ministry of the Environment Statement of Environmental Values, specifically the Introduction which advises [that] “Ontarians should have the means to ensure that it is achieved in an effective, timely, open and fair manner.”
It is hard to believe a decision-maker or Tribunal would find that approval of the infrastructure under the EA process, conducted under the pall of millions of dollars of SLAPP suits could be considered an “open and fair process”. Most of the province’s environmental organizations have called on the McGuinty government to put an end to SLAPPs and on-going public consultation processes tainted by them.
Background
The Big Bay Point proposal would feature 2,000 hotel and condominium units, retail space, a 300-seat theatre and an unprecedented 1,000-slip mega-marina. Constructing this marina would require digging a 30-acre hole in the shoreline and destroying 100 acres of forest. There is an existing, much smaller marina on the property. The endangered butternut tree is also found on the property.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are lawsuits (often for defamation) that are aimed at dissuading citizens from making their voices heard before public decision-makers and tribunals. They are a growing threat to meaningful citizen participation in Ontario and constitute a significant barrier to access to justice for those members of the public who seek to participate in environmental law and policy matters. Members of the IDA are currently the targets of SLAPPs seeking millions of dollars in damages over their opposition to Big Bay Point.
-30-
For more information, or to arrange interviews, please contact: Erin Charter, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 258; (647) 210-7888(cell) David Donnelly, Donnelly Law, (416)-722-0220 (cell) Don Avery, Innisfil District Association, 416-997-7836 (cell)
Canadian Issues in Environmental Law & Policy
Edited by Allan Greenbaum, Ron Puschak and Alex Wellington. Contributors include David Donnelly who co-authored two articles: "Weak Environmental Law Enforcement in Canada: a Continuing Well-kept Secret" and "Property Rights in Canada: Ontario's Greenbelt Act".
Canadian Iss
ues in Environmental Law and Policy is a stimulating multidisciplinary collection of classic, recent and original readings on environmental regulation, litigation and assessment in Canada. The contributors represent a wide range of scholarly and professional expertise, substantive concerns, and points of view. Topics include the regulatory system in Canada, constitutional and jurisdictional issues, policy instruments (including “command and control” regulations, green taxes, and cap-and-trade schemes), environmental assessment, standard setting, and enforcement of environmental law in Canada. More than one third of the readings concern topical controversies around science, risk, health, and the precautionary principle, and related issues, such as pesticides, genetically modified organisms, and drinking water borne hazards (such as the pathogens that killed seven and sickened thousands in Walkerton, Ontario).
The readings explore how issues in environmental law and policy (such as who should bear what burden of proof in litigation and regulatory risk assessment) turn on fundamental political questions about the proper relationship between government, business, and civil society, and the tensions among competing conceptions and rankings of security, liberty, equality, and democracy. The collection reflects a wide range of views in hopes of engaging readers to take part in the discussions on this crucially important and urgent issue of our society today — the environment.
An invaluable resource for anyone interested in environmental law and its social impact, Canadian Issues in Environmental Law and Policy helps readers to appreciate that the law pertaining to the environment is not fixed and static but, rather, is a set of social practices engaged in and carried out by many people performing distinct roles, including judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, policy-makers, and politicians.
(http://www.captus.com/Information/catalogue/book.asp?Book+Number=974)
Enviro-warriors left in the cold
Citizens battling huge development projects face legal, financial threats, says Ontario's environmental commissioner
By Tany Talaga
Queen's Park Bureau - Toronto Star
Citizen groups who take on big developers need enhanced provincial protection from economic intimidation and legal threats, according to a new report from Ontario's environmental commissioner.
Touching on issues from soil erosion to the disappearance of amphibians in Ontario, commissioner Gord Miller's far-reaching report says the land-use planning system is "hugely weighted" in favour of the development industry.
"When the stakes are in the many millions – sometimes billions – of dollars, the resources that developers are prepared to invest to overcome residents' objections far surpass the capacity of most citizens groups (and) environmental organizations," Miller says in his 180-page report.
There are cases of people not participating in public planning discussions for fear of incurring a personal lawsuit, he said.
"That chilling effect, I am fully confident, is widespread," Miller said.
Miller cited problems surrounding a proposed $1 billion luxury resort project on the shores of Lake Simcoe. Concerned residents participated in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding approvals for the Big Bay Point Resort in Innisfil. But citizens faced a claim for costs of $3.2 million – which was denied by the board.
The Big Bay fight led to calls for the Ontario government to develop anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation. Such laws are in force in Quebec and many American states. Miller called for the creation of legislation that would put both sides of development disputes on equal footing and noted it "could serve to halt SLAPP suits in their tracks."
However, when Environment Minister John Gerretsen was asked if he was in favour of enhanced protective legislation for citizens, he deferred the question to Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Watson, who said there is no need for anti-SLAPP legislation.
The track record of the OMB has been "very positive," he added.
"They won't set up a system that is only for the rich and only for powerful corporations," Watson said. "We have to allow individuals who don't have deep pockets to be able to speak freely about legitimate concerns about a development application. To date, I have seen no evidence where individuals have in fact been threatened by coming before the OMB.
Citizens involved in the environmental movement said the government is out to lunch on this issue.
Premier Dalton McGuinty's government should stop punishing its citizens and start rewarding people for showing up to OMB meetings to defend the environment, said David Donnelly, a lawyer and member of Environmental Defence, a non-profit advocacy group.
"Minister Watson clearly has never been to the OMB and doesn't understand what pressures families face when they are being hit with millions in lawsuits by developers. Shame on Minister Watson. He needs to do his homework," said Donnelly.
"This is a burden in communities and on families. It is not true to say the process works well. They have to get on to the job of fixing it."
The report, entitled Building Resilience, also recommends closing the Richmond landfill site near Kingston.
Richmond, an older landfill site, is "arguably one of the worst sites in Ontario to ever locate landfill" and it contains millions of tonnes of waste, Miller said. There is little soil at the site and the limestone rock below is fractured, he said. Waste can run "like water through a pipe," seeping down large distances without being naturally filtered, he added.
"It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to monitor this site."
Also of concern to the commissioner are the declining amphibian species in Ontario such as the spring peeper, Jefferson salamander, pickerel frog, northern cricket frog, bullfrog and northern leopard frog.
"Here is a group of particularly sensitive animals. They are exposed to water, their skins are sensitive to air pollutants and all sorts of disturbances, and guess what? They are dying off around the world at the highest rates," Miller said.
"There are 27 species in Ontario and we should be keeping an eye on them. Somebody should be involved in monitoring their health and looking for ways to mitigate their disturbances."
***
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/706580--enviro-warriors-left-in-the-cold
A green solution to a neighbour's spat
Oysterman Rodney Clark and developer Hans Jain find an environmentally friendly way to settle what could have been a nasty legal battle
Dave LeBlanc - Globe and Mail
We've all heard of a "golden handshake." Now, thanks to environmental lawyer David Donnelly, Toronto has just witnessed its first green handshake, which may set a precedent for homeowners in older neighbourhoods facing the pressures of infill development.
Shaking hands are self-described "urban oysterman" Rodney Clark, a 17-year resident of east-end Kimberley Ave. and owner of Rodney's Oyster House on King St. West, and developer Hans Jain of Atria Development Corporation.
At issue is Mr. Jain's eight-unit townhouse development, near Main and Gerrard
Streets. While seven of the units quietly snake behind the backyard fence of Mr. Clark's handsome century home, the sole detached unit comes within inches of Mr. Clark's quahog shell-covered driveway, and its tall, blank wall substitutes a good deal of his blue-sky view with unwanted shadows.
"He was shouting into the phone that he had just woken up to the sight of the Trump Tower screening out his sunlight," remembers Mr. Donnelly about the phone call he received from Mr. Clark, who had just come home from a lengthy business trip. "He likes to tell a good story so I thought he was either pulling my leg or he'd switched up his medication."
Since Mr. Clark was an old friend - the two know each other through mutual participation in the Ontario Oyster Festival and its support of the advocacy group Environmental Defence - Mr. Donnelly drove over and had a look. While Mr. Donnelly was aware that Atria had purchased the lot with development approvals already in place and, further, that Mr. Clark and his neighbours had fought the previous developer to reduce the scale and impact of the infill project, he was still "quite surprised" at the size of the one detached house: "It really does dominate that part of the street and certainly overshadows a good part of Rodney's property."
So, after calming Mr. Clark down, he arranged a meeting with Mr. Jain. His expectations for a resolution were high, since he'd had past dealings with the Jain family and found them to be "first-class developers." However, since Ontario does not have "right to light" legislation, which exists in some American states and the United Kingdom, he knew his friend would be "out of luck in terms of the traditional planning tools to force some kind of compliance on Mr. Jain."
In other words, the three men would have to find a more creative solution.
Mr. Clark did have a small bargaining chip. In order to finish masonry and roofing work, Mr. Jain would need to rent Mr. Clark's driveway to erect scaffolding. But, instead of a simple cash payout, Mr. Donnelly suggested that Atria install a solar-thermal unit on Mr. Clark's roof so he could "capture what's left of his sunlight and turn it into green energy," says the lawyer. That way, "every time Rodney takes a shower or does his dishes he can think, 'You know, there's something positive that has come out of this experience about being impacted by infill development.' "
"It's not as bad as lobster fishermen getting a poor catch and getting a subsidy from the Minister of Fisheries," adds Mr. Clark, "and it's not that everyone should be at the front door receiving a cheque - it's that [Atria is] changing the design of the community, therefore they have to put something back into it."
Mr. Jain agrees: "We have to work with our neighbours, and [Mr. Clark] seemed like a reasonable guy; we could have had a long and protracted discourse with lawyers and all of that on a really adversarial basis but, I think, on both our sides it doesn't pay."
In addition to the solar panel, Mr. Jain agreed to hire a local landscape architect to soften the tall, blank wall with plantings. And he's decided to incorporate more sustainable features into future projects: "You want to do better for your children," he says, simply.
After the green handshake, Mr. Donnelly drew up a formal contract, which he hopes will serve as a model for future homeowners in similar situations. Until, that is, the province passes its own right-to-light legislation: "It's the next big battleground on the road to Ontario's sustainable energy future."
It is legislation Mr. Donnelly would be happy to help prepare in order to protect both the homeowner and their sunlight but also allow people to develop more intensively in urban areas. "We have [older and underutilized] two-storey buildings along a subway line, so we have a long way to go," he says. "The [city's official] target is a half-million people in downtown Toronto, in my opinion it should be a million or more and there's only one way to go and that's up."
And, just like an oyster covering an unwanted irritant to form a pearl, so too has Mr. Clark turned what could have been an irritating real estate situation into something much more palatable: "There has to be in the community stewardship, sustainability and some realization that we all have to fish off the same wharf."
***
Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/a-green-solution-to-a-neighbours-spat/article1213370/
Critics slam province for rezoning farmland
Phinjo Gombu urban affairs reporter - Toronto Star
The province has caved in to developers – and short-term worries about jobs – and disregarded its long-term war on sprawl, by allowing prime farmland just north of the Greenbelt to be turned over to industry, environmentalists and residents say.
The Municipal Affairs ministry's intention to change the zoning of more than 500 hectares near Highways 400 and 88, between Bond Head and the urban area of Bradford West Gwillimbury, will allow Toromont Industries to transfer its Vaughan operations to a 40-hectare site there.
The Star first reported in March that Toromont, an assembler and distributor of large industrial equipment, had threatened to move to Manitoba – putting hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs at risk – if it wasn't permitted to build on that site.
The province's settlement document shows how the cost of allocating 40 hectares to Toromont and servicing that area with water and sewer pipes could only be justified with more development.
The move is the thin edge of the wedge, says David Donnelly, a lawyer for Environmental Defence.
The decision violates the province's Places to Grow plan, invites further sprawl in an area that has no public transit and will promote more highway congestion, Donnelly said yesterday.
Places to Grow, a sweeping, long-range attempt to manage growth across southern Ontario, prescribes intensified development in particular areas to limit sprawl. The much-heralded plan has earned the prestigious Daniel Burnham planning award from the American Planning Association.
The provincial rezoning orders "are inexplicable and effectively cut the province's award-winning Places to Grow legislation to ribbons," said Donnelly. He described the plan as a prime example of tic-tac-toe development that, as feared, has begun to "leapfrog" over the protected Greenbelt area.
Jeffrey Davies, a lawyer for the developers, Geranium and Metrus Developments, called that characterization unfortunate.
"We are at a time in our economy where there is a desperate need for jobs, and we have no other similarly large tracts of land for large-scale industries available in southern Ontario," Davies said. "It is anything but caving in. To the contrary, this is good, sound, responsible planning."
Local dairy farmer Robert Keffler, representing the group Bond Head Bradford West Gwillimbury Residents for Responsible Development, said the urbanization being welcomed by local politicians as a "lifeline to the future" threatens nearby agricultural land.
"We are in a good farming area," said Keffler. "We think it's decidedly not good environmental or agricultural planning to build a new industrial node beside a flood plain that drains into the Holland Marsh, Ontario's salad bowl."
Documents show that secret negotiations among the province, developers and local municipalities were prompted by Toromont's decision to move its head office, training, and manufacturing and distribution operations to the area.
The company is being forced out of the path of Toronto's subway as it is expanded. It has denied that any more than 500 jobs were ever in play, or that it threatened to move out of the province.
Senior officials in the ministries of municipal affairs and infrastructure had questioned enthusiasm for new employment nodes on Highway 400, saying there was an "oversupply" of designated employment lands in south Simcoe County. They had expected to challenge the project at the Ontario Municipal Board, but a high-level decision to enter into negotiations put an abrupt end to that plan.
The province has also agreed to allow a tenfold expansion of the nearby hamlet of Bond Head – increasing its population to 4,500 from 500 – on about 210 hectares. It would be serviced on the same utility lines as the employment zone.
The agreement needs OMB approval, and future development is subject to an environmental assessment process, as well as the Lake Simcoe Protection Act.
There's further pressure for sprawl north along Highway 400, with the Town of Innisfil pushing for an employment zone on its own strip of agricultural land. The province is already challenging parts of that plan before the Ontario Municipal Board – as it had planned to do in the Bradford West Gwillimbury area before deciding to negotiate over the Toromont deal.
Existing land zoned for employment within the Bradford West Gwillimbury urban limits will now be "frozen" and come into play only if a bypass connecting Highway 400 and Highway 404 is built. The province's current growth plan does not contemplate such a bypass.
Ontario is trying to cap the number of homes built in south Simcoe over the next 25 years. The limit is close to half what developers want.
***
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/634129
Sowing green seeds on council
Fundraising network aims to help aspiring city politicians with eco-focused platforms
Tess Kalinowski
STAFF REPORTER - Toronto Star
"Big heart, big brain, big soul – all green."
That's how Toronto City Councillor Paula Fletcher describes lawyer, urban planner and activist David Donnelly, who also happens to live in her Riverdale ward.
Battle plans for many of the environmental skirmishes being fought in communities that shoulder Toronto are drawn on Donnelly's downtown desk. Think Big Pipe, the Oak Ridges Moraine, Boyd Park, Bayview Extension and Big Bay Point Resort.
His small army of allies is growing, thanks in part to the platform and fundraising network created before the 2006 municipal election by Donnelly, first-term Pickering councillor Bonnie Littley, Liberal insider Judy Pfeifer and Richmond Hill naturalist Natalie Helferty.
They dubbed it Green Divas for Council.
The idea was to give a helping hand to environmental candidates willing to take on the developers at municipal councils.
"There's an incredible wealth of very committed, passionate, professional, sophisticated people who are shut out of the (political) process because no one will open the door or give them resources," says Donnelly, 44.
"Municipal politics and federal politics is an elite club, and it's closed to a great extent. ... Even though there is
incredible support and sympathy amongst the voters for independent, environmentally minded candidates, no club exists to help with the fundraising, give them some policy ideas for their platform, and they're not united."
The Divas' Green Agenda, with an introductory letter signed by singer-activist and Donnelly client Sarah Harmer, says a Divas candidate:
- Will not accept contributions from developers;
- Will not shrink the Greenbelt;
- Will promote green building standards.
Donnelly's green heroes aren't all women.
He lists Oakville Mayor Rob Burton among the "divos" and says there are bright spots on the regional landscape, thanks to the work of that council and others, such as those of Ajax and Markham, which are also making progress.
***
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/specialsections/article/577745
David Donnelly Awarded Home-Town Hero 2008 by Earth Day Canada
|
Earth Day Canada is pleased to recognize David Donnelly with the 2008 Hometown Heroes Award. David serves as Legal Counsel to Canada’s leading non-profit and charitable organizations. Clients of Donnelly Barrister and Solicitor include Environmental Defence, the Ontario Greenbelt Alliance, and the Green Gravel Coalition.
Canada’s Hometown Hero has led the fight to stop urban sprawl surrounding Lake Simcoe, which threatens the health of the watershed. Representing a number of citizen groups from the surrounding areas, David recognized the importance of having legislation in place to protect the entire Lake Simcoe watershed. The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, submitted in June of 2006, has now reached near consensus and has given the surrounding communities of Lake Simcoe a voice in protecting their watershed.
David has represented public interest groups in some of Ontario's key environmental cases, including:
|
- Oak Ridges Moraine OMB hearing in Richmond Hill
- Big Bay Point OMB mega-marina hearing
- Walkerton Commission of Inquiry
- 1.8 million acre Greenbelt Plan for Ontario’s Golden Horseshoe
In the spring of 2007 David represented the Innisfil District Association. The campaign opposes the development of a proposed 2,000 unit resort, championship golf course and 1,000 slip marina. As a counter measure, David has been targeted for an unprecedented $3.6 million adverse costs award and is the cornerstone of a new campaign to end Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in Ontario.
|
David has been an advisor to government on law and planning reform, including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, and is a frequent media commentator. He goes to court regularly to protect green space, aboriginal cultural heritage, and to prosecute environmental offences.
Article URL: http://www.earthday.ca/hometown/finalists/2008/david_donnelly.php
Urgent Court Application for Stay of Lake Simcoe Ontario Municipal Board Hearing
Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca)
First Nations objection ignored at mega-marina hearing
Toronto, Ontario – The Huron-Wendat Nation has filed a rare, urgent application for judicial review with the Ontario Superior Court to shut down the controversial Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing regarding the proposed mega-marina at Big Bay Point in Simcoe County, Ontario.
“The Huron-Wendat Nation does not want to stop all development but we also don’t want developers and complicit municipalities making unilateral decisions about our history and rights either,” said Luc Lainé, cultural heritage liaison for the Huron-Wendat in Ontario. “The destruction of so many of our sites without even the same notice afforded to utilities and ratepayers is a great tragedy for all First Nations that can be so easily corrected.”
The Court is asked to review the actions of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Municipal Board, the County of Simcoe, and the Town of Innisfil. All of these parties had a copy of an archaeological report as early as 2004 disclosing the presence of First Nations cultural artifacts and potential aboriginal burials on the site of the proposed development at Big Bay Point.
Despite this knowledge, no notice of the findings was given to First Nations, and no First Nation consultation occurred with regards to the development. In a letter written by Grand Chief Max <<One Onti>> Gros Louis to The Honorable John Gerretson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Grand Chief Gros Louis outlined Ontario’s shameful history of destroying literally thousands of significant and sacred sites, stating, “[w]e draw the line at Huronia”.
The Huron-Wendat Nation alleges that the proponent meticulously notified and consulted a broad range of stakeholders about the development, including Canada Post and Rogers Cable.
“Early notice and consultation with First Nations and environmental groups in Seaton – a new development in Pickering, Ontario – has resulted in significant improvements, both with respect to planning and environmental protection,” said Dr. Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence. “It is up to Courts to end the troublesome double standard illustrated at Big Bay Point in land use planning that grants full rights to commercial interests like Rogers Cable but excludes interested First Nations.”
In the Big Bay Point development, the Provincial Facilitator convened negotiations between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ontario Municipal Board, the County of Simcoe, the Town of Innisfil, and Kimvar Enterprises Inc. (the developer). The parties entered into a binding agreement supporting the development and promising not to oppose or assist any others in opposing the development. No notice was given of these negotiations to First Nations.
“Residents have known about First Nations use and occupation of Big Bay Point for over a century,” said Don Avery, president of the Innisfil District Association. “Contacting First Nations is a very important responsibility. When this responsibility is not fulfilled, it endangers the entire process.”
The Ontario Municipal Board hearing for the Big Bay Point development started on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 without formal notice to First Nations.
The Huron-Wendat Nation is asking the Ontario Superior Court to find that these government actors violated their constitutional and common law administrative duty to notify and consult with First Nations when considering actions that may infringe their aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations is broad and based on the honour of the Crown. The duty arises when the Crown contemplates conduct that may affect aboriginal rights. The court is being asked to stop the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, quash the minutes of settlement resulting from the negotiations between the parties, and order that First Nations be afforded formal notice and consulted.
The Big Bay Point development calls for 1,600 resort units (fractional ownership), 400 hotel units, a 1,000 slip marina on a man-made bay, and an 18-hole golf course. Groups around the Lake, including Campaign Lake Simcoe, support the argument that the project should not be permitted at this scale and should be subject to the proposed Lake Simcoe Protection Act.
The specific applicable Regulations to the Planning Act require formal notice to First Nations Reserves within 1 km of the site of the proposed development. The Huron-Wendat Nation is located in Wendake, Quebec. The law effectively states that proponents will never need to notify the Huron-Wendat Nation, despite the fact that thousands of ancestral Huron cultural heritage and sacred sites lie in the path of development.
For more information, or to arrange interviews, please contact:
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521
Don Avery, President, Innisfil District Association, (416) 997-7836
Luc Lainé, Huron-Wendat Nation, (418) 580-6205
Proposed Lake Simcoe Protection Act Applauded
Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca)
Lake Simcoe Summit historic success
Toronto –An unprecedented coalition of environmental groups, ratepayer and citizens’ groups is praising the McGuinty government’s announcement of plans to introduce the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. The surprise announcement was made last Friday at the Lake Simcoe Summit in Barrie in front of a cheering crowd representing 65 citizens’ and non-profit groups from around the Lake, and 12 government agencies and elected officials.
“The proposed Act is better than a cool dip in the Lake on a hot day, ”said David Donnelly, counsel to Environmental Defence and to a number of the groups in attendance, and one of the first proponents of the Act.
“All our work to establish a truly great coalition and plan to save the Lake is rewarded with this proposed Act,” said Robert Eisenberg, founding Chair of the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition. “There’s no going back now; the Government of Ontario has recognized the urgent need for an Act and so should everyone else.”
In his announcement, Premier McGuinty covered all the principles of conservation that Campaign Lake Simcoe hoped would form the foundation of an Act. Describing the Act, the Premier told the crowd:
“It will mean that no new development will be allowed to harm the lake. It will set strict limits on pollutants such as phosphorus. It will require stringent sewage treatment. It will support a governance structure that has been recommended by the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy working group. And it will promote recreation while protecting the health of the lake. We want growth that is good for the lake and the community that depends on the lake.”
“We are so glad that the Premier has listened to the science showing the damage Lake Simcoe has undergone,” said Wendy Francis, Director of Conservation and Science for Ontario Nature.
Lake Simcoe’s southeast shoreline is governed by the Greenbelt Act, leaving about half of the watershed unprotected. Simcoe County has been referred to as Ontario’s “Wild West” of development, with dozens of development applications leap-frogging over the Greenbelt and into south Simcoe County.
The effect of the Premier’s announcement on developments currently seeking approvals remains unclear, particularly regarding the contentious Big Bay Point mega-project near Barrie.
The Greenbelt Protection Act contained retroactive provisions to catch developments that were not yet approved at the time the Act was announced. “The Greenbelt Protection Act is the logical staring point for a new Lake Simcoe Act,” said Donnelly. The proposed Lake Simcoe Protection Act is different from the Greenbelt Act in one key respect, it emphasizes tougher environmental assessment standards to ensure water quality in addition to new land use controls.
The Lake Simcoe Summit was co-hosted by Campaign Lake Simcoe and the Ladies of the Lake (www.lakeladies.ca). Campaign Lake Simcoe is a partnership of Environmental Defence, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, and Ontario Nature (www.campaignlakesimcoe.ca).
For more information, or to arrange interviews, please contact:
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521(cell)
Annabel Slaight, Co-Founder of the Ladies of the Lake, (905) 476-7575
Bob Eisenberg, Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, (416) 484-1250 ext. 220
Salamanders Take Round Against Proposed Greenbelt Quarry
Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca)
Province Declares Grindstone Creek Headwaters to be Provincially Significant Wetlands
Toronto, Ontario -- Protecting Escarpment Rural Land (PERL) and Environmental Defence have received notice from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources that a series of wetlands on Mount Nemo in Burlington, the Grindstone Creek Headwaters Wetland Complex, have been designated as Provincially Significant.
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521 (cell)
David Donnelly, (416) 722-0220 (cell)
Sarah Harmer, PERL, info@perlofburlington.org
Ruling paves way for `green' Seaton
Eco-friendly community for 70,000 `truly looks like a go' after developer fails to get Supreme Court hearing
Canada's top court has cleared the way for the province to build Ontario's largest environmentally friendly community for 70,000 people in north Pickering.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday it would not grant developer Silvio De Gasperis leave to appeal a lower court decision that rejected his argument that planning for Seaton was flawed and done without adequate consultation.
"This plan has become law and it clearly sets a strong direction for the community of Seaton," said Bruce Singbush, a senior official with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
"It means the plans for the community of Seaton are final," he said yesterday, pointing out that – if municipal planning decisions move ahead on time – shovels could hit the ground within five years.
The ruling allows for the real work to begin – planning for what environmentalists and government officials promise will be Canada's largest, most complex and significant eco-friendly community, built on 55 per cent of a 6,000-hectare land parcel east of West Duffins Creek.
About 45 per cent of the Seaton lands are already protected as green space and a natural heritage system that is defined by numerous streams and brooks.
In addition to the 70,000 residents, the plan calls for the creation about 35,000 jobs in the area.
If the plan, the result of three years of consultations, comes to fruition, it would result in a one-of-a-kind community of 15 compact neighbourhoods bordering forests and streams.
The plan calls for, among other things:
The disappointed developer said the ruling "is what it is," adding he thought it was unfortunate for Pickering taxpayers but the law of the land must be respected.
Seaton's planning principles, laid down by the province, now have to be executed by the city of Pickering, which still prefers development on De Gasperis's lands.
The Seaton lands saga began in the 1970s when Ontario expropriated about 6,000 hectares of land bordering West Duffins Creek and the Pickering-Ajax boundary between Highway 7 and the railway corridor for a planned federal airport and community.
Plans for the community lay dormant for decades until kick-started by a Liberal-engineered plan to swap developers' land in the environmentally sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine for land in Seaton.
That swap and the decision to include in the greenbelt the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve – where De Gasperis owned land – triggered a bitter battle between the developer and the government. De Gasperis said the Seaton lands were more environmentally sensitive than his and it made more sense to build on his lands because they were serviced, a position supported by Pickering.
De Gasperis still has one outstanding court challenge that questions the environmental assessment of the land swap.
David Donnelly, a lawyer for Environmental Defence and an aboriginal group called the Founding Nations Circle – which worked with the province during the planning process for Seaton – said the community "truly looks like a go."
But Donnelly cautioned that the key to Seaton's success lies in the fulfillment of a Liberal promise that Seaton would be built to the highest possible environmental standards – and that it would set the bar for how future growth will be handled.
Pickering Mayor Dave Ryan said he was disappointed with the ruling but he is willing to work with the province.
"Seaton has the potential to be the most sustainable development in Canada," he said.
But Ryan warned that will happen only if the provincial and federal governments pay for some key costs, including the mass transit and jobs component. "It's not something Pickering can do on its own," he said.
***
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182457
Environmental Defence Joins Niagara Escarpment Effort
Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca)
National environmental group supports local group's work to stop quarry in Greenbelt
Toronto, Ontario – Environmental Defence is joining forces with Protecting Escarpment Rural Land (“PERL”) to protect the Niagara Escarpment in Burlington, Ontario which is under threat from a massive limestone quarry proposal. Nelson Aggregate is proposing a new quarry situated in the heart of Mount Nemo, a significant landform on the Niagara Escarpment and in Ontario’s Greenbelt.
“The quarry application is mired in technical difficulties because the applicant chose a very sensitive area, one that is ultimately not suitable for quarry development,” said PERL co-founder Sarah Harmer. “After considerable review, our resolve is strong that we oppose this proposal. Gaining national recognition from Environmental Defence is very important to us. It will help us get the message out there to the public, especially during the current provincial by-election in Burlington.”
Jennifer Foulds, Environmental Defence, (416) 323-9521 ext. 232; (647) 280-9521 (cell)
David Donnelly, (416) 722-0220 (cell)
Sarah Harmer, PERL, info@perlofburlington.org
Natives say land deal left them out
If seven Indian groups win court battle with province over consultation process, critics say it could open a Pandora's box of negotiations across Ontario
Little, it seems, stands in the way of southern Ontario's booming development industry.
But the shards and fragments of centuries-old Indian artifacts, village sites and burial grounds lying just below the earth's surface could trip up more than a few bulldozers.
An Ontario court is considering whether the province should have consulted more with some native groups in a planned land swap. If the court rules against the province, it could thwart "anybody dealing with land," said lawyer David Donnelly, who represents the Huron-Wendat First Nation. The band, which occupied most of the area around Toronto about 400 years ago, is now based near Quebec City.
In essence, it could force those involved in major land transactions to engage in protracted consultations with a wide variety of native groups.
"If they open the door to this, then we are into a very vast, broad and almost excessively onerous responsibility on both private and public proponents," Donnelly said this week.
The case involves a 2002 provincial land swap aimed at stopping subdivisions on the Oak Ridges moraine. The controversial deal, which gave developers provincially owned land in Pickering in exchange for environmentally sensitive property in Richmond Hill, was supposed to be completed in March 2005.
But a provincial development plan for the Pickering lands, known as Seaton, was not approved until last spring and an environmental assessment of the land exchange wasn't completed until July.
Just as the province was preparing to finalize the transaction, Indian activist David Sanford, along with developers opposed to the deal, appealed the environmental assessment, arguing that native groups outside the Huron-Wendat had not been properly consulted.
Since then, seven other Indian bands have joined forces to halt the transaction and last week spent four days in Divisional Court arguing that the province had both a statutory and a constitutional duty to consult them during the process.
The three-judge panel has reserved its decision until February.
"We think this case shows that government really needs to get its act together when it comes to First Nations consultation," said lawyer Nicholas Tibollo.
A government spokesman was reluctant to speculate on the outcome of the case.
Southern Ontario was home to Indians for centuries before and during European colonization, and the soil is filled with artifacts, former village sites and burial grounds, said Donnelly. But few efforts have been made until recently to preserve this cultural heritage when it was threatened by development.
Since 2004, when a justice of the peace ruled the province failed to adequately consult Indians on the sale of land to the Roman Catholic Church in Markham, representatives of the three major First Nations groups with roots in southern Ontario have been working on a streamlined consultation process with government.
The Huron-Wendat, Anishinabe and Iroquois have made significant progress in Seaton, Donnelly said. "Historic" agreements to preserve and honour Huron-Wendat village sites in the area could be lost if the courts send everyone back to the drawing board again, he added. And that's why the Indians' court challenge, supported by developers who oppose the Seaton land swap, is so frustrating, Donnelly said.
Lawyers representing the seven opposing bands say the streamlined consultation process has no official status among Ontario Indians or government, and it didn't include them
Aboriginal law expert Joseph Magnet, acting for six of the bands, said government notices sent to four of his clients were never received and that reported phone calls and meetings to discuss the Seaton land transfer with a government consultant are "pure fiction."
"The facts are that none of my clients were ever contacted," he told the court.
***
Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/125648--natives-say-land-deal-left-them-out
Walkerton Commission of Inquiry, 2001
Represented the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund (“CEDF”) and the Safe Drinking Water Coalition at the Inquiry. The Coalition included representatives from Pollution Probe, CEDF and First Nations. David Donnelly worked to facilitate the involvement of coalition members at the Inquiry.
Represented the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund (“CEDF”) and the Safe Drinking Water Coalition at the Inquiry. The Coalition included representatives from Pollution Probe, CEDF and First Nations. David Donnelly worked to facilitate the involvement of coalition members at the Inquiry.