Ontario civil | Administrative Law
JUDICIAL REVIEW
No evidence of representation made to applicant that archaeological assessment would be made
Minister decided to issue renewable energy approval (“REA”) to respondent for construction and operation of class 4 wind facility. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant lacked standing. Applicant did not meet test for personal standing. Applicant did not show applicant suffered injury as result of decision distinguishable from that sustained by average citizen. Applicant did not have public interest standing. Applicant did not meet requirement that applicant have genuine interest in issues raised in application. Fact that favourable decision in application might assist applicant in appeal to Environmental Review Tribunal was not sufficient to create genuine interest. There was another reasonable way to bring application forward. Decision was reasonable. Decision was reached in manner that was procedurally fair. There was no credible material suggesting individual was deprived of ability to make views known during consultation process because of technical defects respecting notice of first meeting. Director’s decision to dispense with compliance was reasonable. Reasonable basis for decision was apparent from record. Any duty to give reasons was met. There was no evidence of any representation made to applicant that certain process would be followed for archaeological assessment.
Preserve Mapleton Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment) (Apr. 24, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., Crane and Swinton JJ., File No. 38/12) 216 A.C.W.S. (3d) 270 (10 pp.).
No evidence of representation made to applicant that archaeological assessment would be made
Minister decided to issue renewable energy approval (“REA”) to respondent for construction and operation of class 4 wind facility. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant lacked standing. Applicant did not meet test for personal standing. Applicant did not show applicant suffered injury as result of decision distinguishable from that sustained by average citizen. Applicant did not have public interest standing. Applicant did not meet requirement that applicant have genuine interest in issues raised in application. Fact that favourable decision in application might assist applicant in appeal to Environmental Review Tribunal was not sufficient to create genuine interest. There was another reasonable way to bring application forward. Decision was reasonable. Decision was reached in manner that was procedurally fair. There was no credible material suggesting individual was deprived of ability to make views known during consultation process because of technical defects respecting notice of first meeting. Director’s decision to dispense with compliance was reasonable. Reasonable basis for decision was apparent from record. Any duty to give reasons was met. There was no evidence of any representation made to applicant that certain process would be followed for archaeological assessment.
Preserve Mapleton Inc. v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment) (Apr. 24, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Cunningham A.C.J.S.C., Crane and Swinton JJ., File No. 38/12) 216 A.C.W.S. (3d) 270 (10 pp.).
