T: 416-862-4836 email JulieView full profile.
T: 613-761-2424 email CharlesView full profile.
T: 416-862-4837 email RichardView full profile.
T: 613-217-8521 email John View full profile.
T: 416-862-4825 email MatthewView full profile.
T: 416-862-4826 email JohnView full profile.
T: 416-862-4820 email MarcView full profile.
T: 416-862-4831 email CarlView full profile.
T: 416-642-4874 email AlessiaView full profile.
T: 416-642-4877 email KipView full profile.
T: 416-642-4876 email SydneyView full profile.
T: 416-862-4823 email AmandaView full profile.
T: 416-862-4829 email AnandView full profile.
T: 416-862-4828 email JacquelynView full profile.
T: 416-862-4835 email JenniferView full profile.
T: 416-862-4830 email JoannaView full profile.
T: 416-642-4873 email LaurenView full profile.
Environment • Aboriginal • Energy
On September 23, 2014, the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) released its interlocutory decision in Rocha v Director, Ministry of the Environment. The ERT refused to issue a stay pending appeal of a Director’s Order issued to a mortgagee and advisor under section 157.3(5) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). The ERT found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of the work items set out in the Director’s Order.
The ERT decided that even if it had jurisdiction to stay any of the work items, it would not exercise its discretion to do so. Mr. Rocha failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm. The ERT held that the balance of convenience did not warrant a stay.
Most interesting was the ERT’s finding that “where groundwater contamination is present and spreading”, the balance of convenience test directs a mortgagee with management or control to conduct work on the property before hearing an appeal.
Click here to read the full article.