The Environmental Review Tribunal has dismissed an anti-wind appeal, because the neighbours opposed to the project did not file a proper notice of appeal: Ball v. Director. Several appeals were also dismissed in Monture v. Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, because the notices of appeal were not filed on time.
The Ministry of the Environment is continuing to issue Renewable Energy Approvals for wind farms across Ontario, under the Environmental Protection Act, and worried neighbours continue to appeal each one to the Environmental Review Tribunal. To launch an appeal, objectors must describe how engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment under sections 142.1(3) and 142.2(1)(a) of the EPA.
Previous wind appeals include: Erickson v. Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, [2011] O.E.R.T.D. No. 7, approval upheld; Middlesex-Lambton Wind Action Group v. Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, 2012 CarswellOnt 2254, appeal withdrawn ; Preserve Mapleton Incorporated v. Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, [2012] O.E.R.T.D. No. 20, appeal underway ; and Monture v. Ontario, Ministry of the Environment, 2012 CarswellOnt 8748, some appeals still underway. Since the issues raised in all appeals are essentially the same, would-be appellants should easily be able to adapt existing notices of appeal.
Instead, in Ball v. Director, a group of neighbours filed a brief notice of appeal against the South Kent wind farm, located south of Highway 401 between Tilbury and Ridgetown, Municipality of Chatham-Kent. The notice, and supplementary letter, gave no meaningful details of the alleged harm, within the time permitted for appeals:
We want to go on record that our position is that this project will cause harm to human health and the environment if it proceeds, as well as decreased property values. However, we will not be arguing the broader issues related to Rule 29(d).
This was so completely inadequate that the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeal. Subsequent details were submitted too late to save the appeal. The appeal was dismissed forthwith.