Policies & Threats Related to Greenspaces
Meanwhile, on December 10, the Divisional Court issued its Decision on the demand for cost awards. Finding that the Greenspace Alliance is not a public interest litigant, it agreed with the City’s but reduced the award to the developers to $25,000 “in recognition of the [Alliance’s] limited means.” The Alliance is seeking leave to appeal this cost award decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
On Tuesday, March 11, the Greenspace Alliance and the Sierra Club filed for Leave to Appeal a Permit to take Water issued by the Ministry of Environment on February 22. The permit would allow withdrawal of up to 17 million litres per day until September 30, 2008, in order to allow laying of water and sewer mains in Phase 2 of the Findlay Creek Village development. A summary of the
On May 20, 2009 the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital and the Sierra Club Canada filed an application with the Environmental Review Tribunal for Leave to Appeal a 10-year Permit To Take Water issued on April 27, 2009. They also filed a Motion for an Interim Stay. (Supporting the Motion was an Affidavit sworn by Erwin Dreessen – 497 KB.) That motion was denied because the Tribunal concluded it had
Appeal of Water Taking Permit at Leitrim Settled On March 23, 2010, the Environmental Review Tribunal accepted a settlement that had been reached between the developers of Findlay Creek Village and the Appellants (the Greenspace Alliance and Sierra Club Canada) acting on behalf of the Friends of Leitrim Wetland. In July 2009, the Tribunal had granted leave to appeal a 10-year Permit To Take Water on three narrow grounds. Ever since,
On December 19, 2008, on the heels of action at the municipal level, the Greenspace Alliance, represented by Ecojustice, filed an application for Leave to Appeal the award of costs issued by the Divisional Court on December 10. The application to the Ontario Court of Appeal asserts that the Divisional Court made errors of law, as well as errors of mixed facts and law in awarding costs against the Greenspace
Metro, on page 3 of its November 5, 2008 Ottawa edition, had a newsflash: “Court costs will break us, environment group claims A city environmental group that unsuccessfully challenged an OMB decision fears it will have to shut down if a developer’s demands for legal costs are awarded. The Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital says the developers of Findlay Creek Village and the city want more than $72,000 in costs.
On July 11, 2008, a proposal to pump up to 17 million litres per day from the Leitrim Wetland area was posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights web site (EBR # 010-4134). This permit would be good for ten years. The comment period was to end on August 10 but an extension to September 5 was granted because the Ministry was late in providing the supporting documents. Here are
On July 21, 2008, the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed a motion by Findlay Creek Properties Ltd. The motion sought to dismiss an application for Leave to Appeal a permit issued by the Ministry of the Environment to pump water out of Leitrim Wetland. The appeal is spearheaded by the Greenspace Alliance and the Sierra Club of Canada on behalf of the Friends of Leitrim Wetland. The Permit To Take
Following our Action Alert and Media Releases, media coverage has included the following: + The News EMC, Ottawa South Edition, 15 November 2007 + David Yazbeck, host of Thursday mornings’ Special Blend on CKCU (93.1 fm), interview with Erwin Dreessen, 29 November 2007. + Local news, CBC Radio 1, 4:30 and 5:30 p.m., 29 November 2007, with excerpts from interview with our legal counsel, Linda McCaffrey, by Giacomo Panico. +
Sol Shuster, Vice-Chair of the Greenspace Alliance, on December 18, posted the following to the Alliance email list: In an unprecedented move, the City of Ottawa recently asked a judicial review panel to require that its legal costs be paid by the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (GA). These costs arose in relation to an unsuccessful legal challenge before the Ontario Divisional Court. The challenge was part of the Alliance’s
