Tag Archives: wind farm approvals

Group files court documents for Judicial Review of wind farm approval

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

South Shore Prince Edward County: how did a power plant get approved for this? [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]

South Shore Prince Edward County: how did a power plant get approved for this? [Photo Point 2 Point Foundation]

Canada Newswire

Community Group Files Request for Judicial Review of Wind Farm Approval Process

<!– newsBody:PICTON, ON, Nov. 30, 2015 /CNW/ – CCSAGE Naturally Green (CCSAGE-NG) filed notice in Divisional Court at Ottawa today for a Judicial Review of the Renewable Energy Approval process for the White Pines wind power project in Prince Edward County.

The power project was approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in 2015. Part of that approval included a permit issued by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forests to “kill, harm and harass” endangered or threatened wildlife species.

CCSAGE cited institutional bias, lack of evidence-based studies, disallowance of municipal input, and denial of natural justice in its court filing, which is supported by 1,500 pages of evidence showing that the government’s approval process violated the constitutional rights of citizens and communities as well as international treaties and agreements.

Ontario’s Green Energy Act permits appeals of wind power approvals only on grounds of serious harm to humans, or serious and irreversible harm to animal and/or plant life and to the natural environment, but not on other grounds such as a biased approval process, violation of constitutional rights, harm to local economies, harm to heritage features, diminution of property values, or violation of international treaties and agreements.

CCSAGE NG Chair Anne Dumbrille said that because the existing appeal process is biased in favour of the wind power developers, the group’s only choice was court: “The Environmental Review Tribunal is a government-appointed panel that follows government rules with the result that it allows destruction of environmentally sensitive areas.  Our only recourse is to Canada’s courts, where rules of justice prevail,” she said.

CCSAGE NG was aided by research done by five students from the Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.

CCSAGE NG is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation working to ensure that “Green Energy” initiatives of governments and industry are safe and appropriate for the citizens, wildlife and the natural and heritage environments of Prince Edward County.

SOURCE Wind Concerns Ontario

–>

Gunn’s Hill wind farm proposal incomplete, should be denied: community group

02 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The proposal by Germany-based Prowind to build a wind “farm” near Woodstock Ontario is the subject of a complaint to the Ministry of the Environment, and the Office of the Ombudsman. While the application process is supposed to be “transparent” and open to the public, the truth is, documentation is not complete, and the Ministry and the proponent engage in correspondence that is not available to the public.

Joan Morris, Chair of the group East Oxford Community Alliance, wrote a letter to the Ministry of the Environment, both to the Minister and staff, demanding that approval not be granted to Prowind for the project, due to the failure to follow process. The letter follows:

Dear Minister,
I am writing to draw to your attention serious process issues at the Ministry of Environment with respect to renewable energy project reviews.  The public is being denied the opportunity to receive complete and accurate information regarding a project, and also to participate in the “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE reportedly occurring following the EBR comment period.
I trust you will investigate these issues in which Ontario citizens’ rights are being denied.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
From: Joan Morris
Sent: June-23-14 11:15 AM
To: Garcia-Wright, Agatha (ENE)
Cc: ‘Eric Gillespie’
Subject: Environmental Approval Process – Gunn’s Hill Wind Project – “Iterative Process”
Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright,
In your letter dated April 25, 2014 you have indicated the following:
·         The MOE may require “additional information or clarification from the proponent”
·         The review process may be an “iterative process”
These points raise significant concern for reasons as follows:
·         The proponent has reportedly already deemed its application for the project to be complete and accurate (although our FOI request of April 13, 2014 has not yet been fulfilled to confirm this information)
·         MOE staff have deemed the application to be complete (again, results of FOI request pending at this time)
·         The iterative process conducted solely between the MOE and the proponent (without public disclosure or participation) is an admission that the application did not contain sufficient and accurate information for approval and therefore should not have been deemed complete and accurate by the proponent nor by the MOE.  This is also an admission that the information available for public review during the EBR comment period was not complete and accurate.
If the MOE has adopted practices such that the proponent’s REA documents are no longer required to be complete and accurate, and an “iterative process” between the proponent and MOE is accepted practice, then posting to the EBR is a sham and is misleading and deceptive to Ontario citizens.
In your letter of April 15, 2014, you state that projects are planned in a transparent manner, yet, the public appears to have no timely access to the ongoing communication between the MOE, proponent and other ministries.  It appears the only manner in which the public may obtain information is to submit FOI requests on an ongoing basis, to obtain information retrospectively and to incur costs.  Despite my submission of three FOI requests to the Ministry of Environment April 13, April 15 and May 27, 2014 with all applicable fees, as of June 23, I have received no documents whatsoever.  My rights as a citizen to obtain information regarding a project that directly impacts me are being violated due to your ministry’s failure to provide disclosure via either direct request to your agency or via the FOI process.  This, coupled with the “iterative process” between proponent and MOE leads me to reject your claim that projects are planned in a transparent manner, and in fact is reflective of a process designed to facilitate and “remove barriers” for the proponent to gain approval,  rather than to involve and protect the public.
Any iterative process should require that the public be involved at each stage and have the opportunity to participate in a transparent manner. I am not aware that the MOE has disclosed that the process is iterative until now.
I request that the MOE disclose:
·         The date when the iterative process was established between MOE and the proponent and its consultants. In particular please clarify whether the iterative process between MOE and the proponent and its consultants been in effect in the past; AND
·         The process by which the public will be advised of the iterative process;  AND
·         The process by which the public will be full participants in the iterative process;  AND
·         Whether the iterative process will replace the FOI process for obtaining disclosure.
I request that your agency deny the application of the Gunn’s Hill Wind Farm until such time as your Ministry discloses complete and accurate information to the public regarding all communication relating to this project, and the public has adequate opportunity to participate fully in the “iterative process” in an open and transparent manner.
Sincerely,
Joan Morris
Copy:    Eric Gillespie (lawyer)

 

See related story here.