Excerpts from Ruling on:

Motion by the Plaintive for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a
decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) dated June 8, 2001
(Court File: No.: 01-DV-00616, Date: 20011029)

Between:

City of Ottawa (Represented by Stuart J. Huxley, for the Plaintiff)

and

Gordon Sample, Richard Bendall, Brian Finch, and The Citizen Review Committee for Waste
Management of Ottawa-Carleton (Represented by Joyce A. Tailor / W. Terrance Denison, for the Respondents)

Heard: September 27, 2001, by Justice A. de L. Panet

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

October 29, 2001

Decision:  (excerpts)

[14]         There is no statutory direction which states that the OMB cannot consider the same evidence that supported an environmental assessment when it presented in support of an official plan amendment. (see Rogers, Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, 2^nd ed. Vol. 2 at p. 1502)

[15]         It would be unprecedented to require the OMB to decline its independent jurisdiction to decide whether an undertaking is good land use planning or not, simply because an undertaking has received an approval from the Ministry of the Environment. (see Laidlaw Waste Systems (Durham) Ltd. V. Durham (Regional Municipality) (1996) OMBD No. 978.)

[16]         In conclusion, I find no support for the proposition by the City that the Minister of the Environment has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with undertakings such as the subject wastewater treatment alternative, and that the OMB, in considering a proposed amendment to an Official Plan, has no jurisdiction to consider such evidence in exercising its own jurisdiction under the Planning Act.

[17]         Further, I find no error by the OMB in not specifically dealing with the admissibility of the environmental assessment evidence presented by the City. That issue was fairly dealt with first by the OMB at the pre-hearing conference on January 21, 2000 and was again dealt with by the OMB on June 30, 2000 when it dismissed a request for a rehearing of the previous OMB decision. I find no error or the ground that this matter was not again dealt with in the OMB decision which is under appeal.

[18]         I conclude that there is no point of law of sufficient importance to merit the attention of the Divisional Court.

[19]         Even if it were to be considered that the issue raised by the City was of sufficient importance, I conclude that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the subject decision.

HOME | CLOSE WINDOW