519 672 2121
519 672 2121
Close mobile menu

The Divisional Court has strongly rejected Ian Hanna’s attack on renewable energy approvals for wind turbines. Hanna objected to the 550 metre setback requirement, proposing that turbines should only be sited in remote locations. He claimed this was required by the MoE Statement of Environmental Values and the precautionary principle, because of what he alleged was uncertainty about health effects for susceptible people. The court (agreeing with my views) upheld the regulation as properly adopted. They noted that the MOE did consider the objectors’ concerns, and balanced them against other principles of the SEV, such as reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.

The court left it up to the Environmental Review Tribunal to assess the technical evidence about wind turbine siting in particular cases. The Kent Breeze appeal is continuing before the ERT.

News & Views

Blog

The more you understand, the easier it is to manage well.

View Blog

Godfrey v Sony: Supreme Court Protects Victims of Price-Fixing Conspiracies

On September 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in Godfrey v Sony Corp.…

Beyond “9 to 5”: Understanding Ontario’s Overtime Rules

Aside from some “tweaks”, not much has changed when it comes to the Ontario’s overtime rules…