Category Archives: legal challenges

Paying to Grease the Wheels of Justice

Falmouth wind turbine 4.jpg

Falmouth wind litigation winds down

By Christine Legere |May 31, 2018 |Cape Cod Times

FALMOUTH — An eight-year legal battle between the town and residents who live near two controversial wind turbines at the municipal wastewater treatment plant off Blacksmith Shop Road has been brought to a close with the recent settlement of three remaining court cases involving monetary damages.

The town’s insurer paid the 10 complainants named in the suits a total of $255,000, according to Town Counsel Frank Duffy.

Eight litigants agreed to settlement amounts in March and have already been paid. Linda Ohkagawa, Kathryn Elder, Brian Elder, Todd Drummey, Terri Drummey, Robbie Laird, Mark Cool and John Ford each received $22,500.

While those amounts fell short of their legal expenses, the group decided to accept the payments.

“It was not wanting to pay any more for the grease to turn the wheels of the justice system,” Cool said. “Everybody was so tired.”

Diane and Barry Funfar agreed to a settlement amount last week as part of a separate nuisance complaint and will be paid in about a month. Each was awarded $37,500, for a total of $75,000.

That award won’t balance the financial books for the couple, who had to remortgage their home three times to cover the cost of their attorneys during years of court hearings.

READ REST OF ARTICLE

Wind Turbine Nuisance: a lawsuit against the Ontario Minister of the Environment

do no harm 1

May 25,2018|André Fauteux| La Maison Saine et Ecologique

(original article in French- Translation via Google Translate)

A group of Ontario citizens personally sued a minister for violating the Environmental Protection Act, allowing wind turbines to undermine their sleep and health, while respecting the limits allowed for audible noises. This law prohibits “discharging a contaminant into the natural environment or allowing or causing it to occur if the release causes or may cause a harmful consequence”. It “means bodily injury, loss of life, loss of use or enjoyment of property and loss of money”.

On April 30, Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) served on Chris Ballard, who heads the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC), to attend court on the 17th. may. A judge will then decide whether or not the Attorney General of the province must lay charges.

Through the Access to Information Act, WCO obtained copies of more than 4,500 citizen complaints sent to the Ministry between 2006 and 2016, many of which had had to abandon their homes that had become unlivable. “Since the MOECC did not respond to thousands of reports of excessive noise from wind turbines, which affects the sleep and health of Ontario families, we had no choice,” said in a statement. organization, nurse Jane Wilson. According to her, “citizens report not sleeping for days, weeks, even months. Sleep disorder is linked to other health problems, such as high blood pressure and diabetes. In 2015-2016, the Ministry responded to only 7% of complaints and only to those living within 1,500m of wind farms, according to WCO. According to Ms. Wilson, the Ministry is not enforcing its own regulations to ensure that the noise level does not exceed 40 decibels dB at the nearest dwelling. “It does not respond to complaints and relies on operators who measure only the average noise in dBA. They ignore other types, including low frequencies (infrasound). ”

Scientific controversy

Health Canada has already published a study on wind turbine noise and health in 2014. Among its findings: “No statistically significant relationship was found between measured blood pressure, or resting heart rate, and exposure. to the sound of wind turbines. In addition, “the researchers did not establish a link between the noise levels of wind turbines measured outdoors, near the residences of participants, and the effectiveness of sleep, the rate of awakening, the duration of awakenings, the total time of sleep or the time needed to fall asleep “.

Findings contested by Carmen Krogh, a former Health Canada employee who has been investigating industrial wind turbines since 2007. “In rural areas, it is very difficult to obtain a statistically significant number of cases. In addition, we can estimate exposure levels, but it takes time to know the effects, “says the author 1 of various scientific articles on the subject.

In 2007, Carmen Krogh found that installing giant wind turbines in Ontario was a great idea, to replace nuclear and coal plants with renewable energy that does not pollute the air and does not contribute to climate change. A retired pharmacist, she naturally investigated whether industrial wind turbines could harm health. “I thought I would not be involved in this file for long,” says the former director of a hospital pharmacy who was also a consultant and employee of Health Canada and former editor-in-chief of the Compendium of Products and Specialties used by professionals who prescribe drugs in Canada.

For the past eleven years, she has been volunteering for wind energy, writing scientific articles and advising individuals, businesses and various levels of government. A former director of pharmacy at a hospital, Ms. Krogh was also a consultant to Health Canada’s Prescription Drug Administration and a director of its Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency. In addition, she is the former editor-in-chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, which is used by professionals who prescribe drugs in Canada. She believes that the burden of proof of safety must rest with industry, just as in the pharmaceutical field. “When a wind project is contested, citizens are always asked to predict the future and prove that wind turbines will hurt them. Because of product differences, evidence of causality is rare in the health field in the absence of a biological mechanism. In the pharmaceutical sector, manufacturers must prove the safety of their products or an acceptable risk / benefit ratio. And doctors, nurses and citizens can file complaints. Thus, over-the-counter doses of ibuprofen were reduced significantly, to 200 mg, because the patients complained of unexpected adverse reactions. ”

Similarly, when it comes to industrial pollution, you always have to focus on people’s reactions to exhibitions and read independent studies, Krogh insists. In 2007, she found that installing giant wind turbines in Ontario was a great idea, to replace nuclear and coal-fired plants with renewable energy that does not pollute the air and does not contribute to climate change. But his inquisitive mind made him discover that installing them near homes could be harmful. “I have studied the symptoms declared at the international level and the points in common are remarkable. When people talk about the same sleep and cognitive problems in Japanese and other languages, it’s very convincing. Another thing that is very convincing is that those who leave their homes intermittently feel better and that their symptoms reappear when they come home. In all cases, the installation of wind turbines was the only major factor that had changed in their environment before the onset of symptoms … I have never heard of a developer of wind turbines ask if residents were sensitive noise or had pre-existing medical conditions and special needs. For example, children with autism are more sensitive to blinking. ”

Ms. Krogh is particularly interested in infrasound. These inaudible vibrations, whose oscillation frequency is less than 20 hertz, are related to a host of symptoms ranging from headaches to insomnia, through acoustic pressures, tinnitus, nausea and dizziness. “The teratogenic congenital malformations of the heart and brain due to infrasounds worry me. In particular, I asked Health Canada to provide me with details about female military pilot helicopters regarding the effects of pulsed propeller noise, which is like large fan blades. I never receive answers from the Ministry. These are important considerations. Already in 2007, a hundred German doctors sounded the alarm by advocating the precaution in infrasound.

According to toxicologist Magda Havas ( an interview she gave us ), an Ontario expert in electromagnetic pollution and a professor at Trent University, industrial wind turbines generate five types of pollutants: audible noise, inaudible noise (infrasound) , the stroboscopic effect caused when the blades shade the sun, stray currents in the ground accentuated by the water table and the interference of high transient frequencies (dirty electricity). These circulate in the air and on the domestic current and are caused by wiring errors as well as the power supplies of electronic devices. Carmen Krogh comments, “I often wonder if people are not exposed to both noise and electrical pollution. The symptoms are dramatic because they are doubly stunned. ”

Ms. Krogh said that sensitivities to pollution vary from one individual to another. “Those who move to rural areas dream of silence and are often very sensitive to noise. But every wind turbine is the equivalent of a factory. I feel that the wind turbines were installed very hastily, without knowing what would be the safe distances and the noise levels. There are some 700 industrial wind turbines in Ontario and the province requires wind farms to be located at least 550 m from homes.

In 2012, the Society for Wind Vigilance , an advisory body of which Mrs. Krogh is a member, recommended that industrial wind turbines be installed at least 2 km from any residence, as required by the Haut-Saint-Laurent RCM. Montérégie. “But some people report adverse effects up to 5 km. It is difficult to recommend a safe distance because the exposure changes constantly and varies depending on several factors, including the terrain and density of the wind farms. The power and height of wind turbines increase with the years. The blades are longer and the experts say that the slower rotations make the sound inaudible. The direction of the wind and the disposition of the wind turbines must also be taken into account. Some are aligned while others are crescent-shaped or circle-shaped. ”

For his part, US professor of internal medicine David R. Lawrence recommends holding wind turbines at least 4-6 miles (6.5-10 km). He and his wife live as much as possible in their basement since two wind turbines were installed 500 m from their home in Connecticut. He also says he also treats several patients who suffer from insomnia, pain and pressure in the head, balance problems, the brain in the heat, pressure bumping into their chest and heart rate problems. “My wife is experiencing all these symptoms, and closer to the antennas,” he wrote in a 2016 submission to the Wisconsin Public Utilities Board. Her symptoms go away when they are not in operation or she walks away at least 2-3 miles (3.2-4.8 km) away. ”

Diagnosis criteria for adverse health effects in the vicinity of wind turbines

Original Article

Ontario Blind, Deaf & Dumb to Turbine Effects & Violations

 

house surrounded by wind turbinesThe following is from a presentation by Anne Dumbrille, Chair of CCSAGE at the Annual General Meeting held at Bloomfield Town Hall, Saturday, May 5, 2018

SOURCE: CCSAGE

Welcome everyone, special welcome to our MPP Todd Smith, Acting Mayor Dianne O’Brien and Councillor Steve Ferguson.
I am giving an update on what is happened in Ontario regarding turbines in the last year.   The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – not always in that order.
Good
Slide 3

  • In 2017, the media has been more outspoken about adverse impacts of turbines e.g.,
  • Two major networks, Global News and Radio-Canada, carried multi-part investigative reports this past year. The three-part Global News feature spurred questions in the Legislature and forced the then-minister to act on noise complaints for several Huron County families.
  • Fraser Inst. Publication Mid- April. They published Understanding the Changes in Ontario’s Electricity Markets and Their Effects criticized the GEA, speaking to it causing high energy costs, losing manufacturing jobs, and not improving the environment.
  • Auditor General criticized Liberal accounting practices re energy costs, fair energy plan; it was well covered in major newspapers

Slide 4
Noise from turbines consists of audible and low frequency noise/ infrsound –these affect brain waves but may be inaudible.

  • A team at University of Waterloo has created a special chamber in which infrasound can be produced, in the hopes that health researchers can determine unequivocally effects of infrasound at levels produced by turbines on people.
  • Australian Court (similar to our ERT) linked wind turbine generated LFN and infrasound noise with possible diseases including hypertension and cardiovascular disease, possibly mediated in part by disturbed sleep and/or psychological stress/distress – it found an established association between annoyance (used as a medical term) and some diseases that result from prolonged stress. They say effects of LFN include motion-sickness-like symptoms, vertigo, and tinnitus -like symptoms.

It was also established that the current method adopted by windfarms to measure noise (including in Canada) — the dB(A) scale, is not suitable for the task, as it does not measure the lower frequency range. The dB(A) scale averages out the sound levels, masking the highest levels and rate of change of noise that could be causing harmful health side-effects.
This is consistent with what the UK noise association said in 2006. 12 years ago.
MOECC still will not address infrasound.
Slide 5
The Environmental Commissioner’s office wrote a report criticizing the government for approving 100% of turbine company permits to kill harm and harass endangered species.
Slide 6
But – BAD they followed that up with one that makes superficial and false statements on the health impacts of wind turbines. She says there is no link between wind turbine noise and health effects — based on ERT conclusions. She does not say that it is next to impossible to win an ERT appeal on health. She said that noise impacts are controlled through setbacks and noise limits in the REAs.
What of the over 4500 records of health/noise complaints filed by people living near turbines in Ontario with the government since 2006? And the out-of-compliance turbines. This is important as if the local turbines are built, they may not be noise compliant.
Slide 7
Bad-Turbines have been out of noise compliance with poor-to-totally lacking government response:
Port Elgin has one (Unifor) turbine – and have been complaining for years about the noise. Finally MOECC said that noise testing did show that it was out of compliance. A noise abatement protocol has to be put in place. The engineering report was filed with the MOECC in January, and then to the wrong Municipality in March – and finally to those affected. There is to be repeat testing in June–if it is out of compliance again -then what? Unknown.

Complaints regarding the Huron-Bruce Turbines in K2 Wind power project led to noise testing a year ago. Turbines were found to be out of compliance with Ontario regulations (April 2017). Since then, MOECC has done nothing.

Kincardine area has made multiple noise complaints over years, have been told testing is ongoing, but somehow, the tests are never completed, and the problem continues. In December they were told by MOECC that nothing was being done. And MOECC will not respond to complaints during an audit. The audit process started in December 2011 and is still not complete.

Slide 8

  • Last summer, a Brinston area resident wrote to Minister Murray about the complete lack of response to her reports of excessive noise (she has had to sleep in her basement on occasion because of the noise and vibration). An officer telephoned her and said:
    • Ministry staff were completely unprepared for wind turbine noise complaints.
    • They still don’t really know what to do.
    • They “lost” her records — even though she had so many reports that the MOECC actually installed equipment and did noise measurement for several days.
    • Last, it was too bad they lost everything pertaining to her situation and reports but it didn’t really matter, she was told because “You’re the only one complaining.”
    • With thousands of noise complaints recorded with the government unresolved, MOECC still refuse to acknowledge the problem, and refuses to look for causes.

Slide 10

  • Good: The MOECC finally admitted previous guidelines resulted in underestimating the noise at nearby homes – the modelling used to predict these impacts was wrong.
  • Last April 21, MOECC released a new protocol intended for “assessing noise from wind turbines that have already been built. It is used by industry and ministry staff to monitor compliance.” And compliance documents are to be publically available.
  • The result of non-compliance is: 1 – Remodel turbines; 2 – conduct a receptor audit at worst affected receptor from that turbine –or mitigation is required

Slide 9 Bad: However:

  • Still no recognition of low frequency noise. And, it hasn’t resulted in any effective changes.
  •  Still – when WCO complained about the lack of response regarding noise and lack of a posted compliance report, they were told that the report cannot be posted as the turbine company’s documents are incomplete. (The turbines had been running for 3 years)

Slide 11

  • Although the government knows the modeling done by wind companies is wrong, they are allowing 5 new large-scale wind projects to follow the old guidelines. If they followed the new guidelines, about 3/4 of these turbines would have to be relocated or removed as they are predicted to be out of compliance with the new noise guidelines. At one project 11 of 12 would be out of compliance.
  • So in January, 5 affected communities filed a JR application against MOECC as surely, Ontario regulations and directives that limit the amount of noise any residence in the province should have to be followed. The claim is – transition provisions were put in place by the ministry to allow those wind turbine companies to use the old regulations without having to provide evidence that they were unable to comply with the new noise modelling guidelines (Dutton Dunwich, North Stormont, La Nation, and Wallaceburg)

Slide 12
Brilliant:

  • Wind Concerns Ontario taking Minister Murray to court May 18 for violating the Environmental Protection Act for permitting noise that causes adverse health events. According to WCO Access to information requests, of 4500 complaints noise/sleeplessness and other health-related effects received, few were followed up – only ~7% in 2015-16.

Slide 13
Ugly

  • In SW Ontario, in an area with sedimentary rock similar to that here, during and after IWT construction, well contamination has been reported – such that some wells are completely clogged, some failed simultaneously from pile-driving during construction. Some have not used their well for 4 years.
  • Before and after tests sent to Laboratories in Michigan show an exponential increase [in] turbidity among the affected wells, including [a] large proportion that can be attributed to black shale particles that are known to contain heavy metals, including uranium, arsenic and lead.
  • An ERT had warned that water wells in that area could be damaged.
  • A professional geologist said: the relationship between the installation of wind turbines and the contamination of wells is obvious. When you have a [pure] water source for years and [transforms] a few days after the construction of an industrial facility. You do not have to be a genius to see that there is a link of cause and effect.
  • He had agreement from geoscientist and geological engineer.
    The project’s owner claims it has nothing to do with the problem.

MOECC’s response — While there’s been an admission that wells have indeed been contaminated, contamination can only be attributed to “unidentified factors.” They maintain that pile-driving activities associated with wind turbine development are not to blame. This conclusion was based on evaluations prepared by the power developer’s consultant.

MOECC say that you should only test your water for bacteria.

Quinte Region Proposed Source Protection Plan Version 8.1 Aug 2012: Section 2.4: “Due to the shallow soil conditions, the entire Quinte area was identified and mapped as a highly vulnerable aquifer. This designation was a direct result of the ease with which a contaminant can move into the underlying fractured bedrock aquifer.” 

Slide 14

  • In 2017 alone, reported in the media:
  • 181 accidents.* Note that there is massive underreporting. RenewableUK confirmed that of 1500 wind turbine accidents and incidents in the UK alone between 2006 and 2011, only 9% are on the global report. So there may have been more like 1800 accidents.

*  http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf 

But it gives information on a cross-section of accidents: –

  • Of the 181, there were 17 fatal accidents, 13 injury accidents, 16 blade failure (blade or partial blade throws, travelling up to 1 mile), 24 fires, 14 structural failures (storm damage, tower collapse), 19 transport – related (biggest cause of public injury/fatalities, e.g. ram through a house, turbine parts falling off).

Slide 15

  • Turbine collapse in Chatham-Kent January
  • And in Germany, bits of blade travelled over 500 m –yes, the distance to neighbouring houses by Ontario regulations.

Slide 16
CONCLUSION

  • MOECC, MNRF – Apparently – still blind, deaf and dumb regarding turbine effects and violations
  • All rules and regulations can be broken for the precious GEA
  • Compliance is only met only if citizens fight (and pay) for it
  • Feds (Health Canada, Environment Canada) – no better

Where is MOECC? Blanding’s Turtles face imminent harm

Windlectric Defies Its Own Turtle Protocol – Blanding’s Turtles Endangered

Posted May 6, 2018  on FaceBook by: Association to Protect Amherst Island 

“Windlectric (AQN-T) was advised of the presence of a nesting Blanding’s Turtle on Front Road on Amherst Island in immediate proximity of collector installation. Instead of stopping work in accordance with its own protocol, the company continued to install collector lines, transport cement and use heavy equipment.

Honourable Chris Ballard, Minister MOECC, has been requested to require compliance and protect endangered species.

Blanding’s Turtles nest at maturity and live to be 70 to 100 years. The loss of one turtle or one nest devastates the species.

The ERT decision says:

The ERT in its decision understood the grave harm to the population of Blanding’s Turtles and said without equivocation:

[325] Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the mitigation measures incorporated as conditions of the REA have all but eliminated the potential for turtle mortality and have minimized the potential for indirect impacts to habitat during the construction phase. The construction window of November 1 to March 31 for those portions of the Project closest to the coastal wetlands, and the window of September 1 to March 31 for the remainder of the Project, will ensure that construction takes place outside the period during which turtles are active outside of their resident wetlands. Additionally, in the rare event that a turtle remains active during construction, the Tribunal is satisfied that the exclusionary fencing to be used, mostly on private agricultural land, will ensure that turtles are not able to access construction areas.

[337] Despite having made this finding, due to the uncertainty around the location of temporary areas of flooding and water bodies, and recognizing that there is a chance that a turtle may nest on an access road while Project staff are not present and nests may remain hidden from view, the Tribunal makes two recommendations as follows:

a. that no access roads be used during any flooding events during the active season for Blanding’s Turtle in order to ensure that should any turtles be present that they are given time to vacate the access road before Project staff use it; and

b. that no road grading take place during the nesting season for Blanding’s Turtles in order to ensure that any road-side nests are unharmed as a result of grading activities on access roads.

[338] The Tribunal is of the view that these two additional measures will add an additional layer of protection in the unlikely event that a turtle finds itself, or nests, on an access road.

Windlectric Inc. has violated the timing restrictions every business day since April 1 and most recently has worked on Sunday.

What say you Robert Wright and Justin Duncan?”

To contact Minister Chris Ballard ,MOECC (Minister of Environment & Climate Change):
Email: minister.moecc@ontario.ca
Phone:   416-314-6790
Mail: Ferguson Block 11th Flr, 77 Wellesley St W, Toronto, ON M7A 2T5

Is Dirty Power Killing Us?

9484
David Stetzer speaking about electrical pollution at public information event held in Smithville Photo Credit: News Alert Niagara

Saturday afternoon over ninety members of the public attended an electrifying community information session on “Understanding Stray Voltage and Industrial Wind Turbines” held at Covenant Christian School in Smithville.

The keynote speaker was Mr. David Stetzer an electrician with 30 years’ experience. Stetzer specializes in power control in industry, municipalities, and motor control centers. For the last decade, Stetzer has focused his attention on power quality analysis and troubleshooting. He is a senior member of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers), an expert witness in litigation suits in ground currents and power quality, co-author of peer reviewed papers in journals as well as a producer of the documentary ‘Beyond Coincidence: The Perils of Electrical Pollution’.

Stetzer attributes much of the dirty electricity – frequently referred to as ‘stray voltage’ that exists in Ontario – to the overloading of the single return wire in our power supply. Eighty percent of the power that returns to the substation is “dumped” onto the ground. We do not see, hear, feel, taste or smell electromagnetic energy. Yet the proliferation of electrical pollution creates problems for people who have a biological reaction to the poor power quality that is generated by industrial wind turbines, power transmission lines and distribution lines.

Any power generator in Ontario has an obligation to transmit ‘clean power’. Using an oscilloscope, it is possible to measure the pure sine wave of clean power and determine what harmonics, transients or intermediate frequencies which produce poor power quality or ‘dirty electricity’ are also present.

Tuned filters at the site of power generation prevent some of the distortion. But according to Stetzer the best solutions are to enforce current and existing codes and standards like the IEE519. Stop using the earth as a return circuit for the neutral current, by increasing the size of the utility’s Primary Neutral or utilize a 5-wire system to accommodate power returning to the substation.

9462_JPGW
Photo Credit: News Alert Niagara

Much of Stetzer’s work has been done with dairy cows to identify causes of decreased milk production. Poor production costs time, money and health.

As one member of the audience pointed out – industrial wind turbines are an intermittent power generator and only produce 28% of the nameplate capacity. “It’s like buying a one-titted cow” she said.

The second speaker was Carmen Krogh – a full time volunteer and published researcher regarding health effects and industrial wind energy facilities. She shared her preliminary research on why people in communities with industrial wind turbine generators leave their homes. Community members were invited to participate in a community-based study to explore the circumstances which may influence individuals and families to vacate or remain in their home when living near a wind energy project. Participation was voluntary, and 67 community members shared their experiences.

Based on preliminary results, sleep disturbance appears to be the most common reason people vacate. Other symptoms included: sensations such as pressure in the ears, chest, head, heart, bladder: ear problems such as tinnitus, burning, popping in ears; heart palpitations such as racing heart, increased blood pressure; headaches such as, migraines, stomach aches; nausea, vomiting, dizzy, vertigo; nose bleeds, skin infections, stress, anxiety, extreme agitation/ irritability, depression, cognitive, loss of concentration, and a sense of panic.

Krogh’s next steps are to finalize her data analysis and submit a number of papers for publication in peer reviewed journals. In addition, these findings will be shared with government authorities both domestically and globally.

Barb Ashbee – a member of the panel discussion – provided the victim impact perspective. Ashbee and her husband were happy, healthy involved community members before a wind turbine project started up near their home. The serious adverse health effects drove them out of their community. Testing in their home showed out of compliance noise, infrasound and electrical pollution. It was a battle to get any meaningful information or assistance from the government. After hiring a lawyer, they settled with the company, were able to relocate and their symptoms subsided after moving. Almost 10 years later, the anger and dismay at what the government is doing to citizens has not lessened as the toll rises. Ashbee continues to advocate for resolution for victims impacted by wind energy.

The supper speaker was Mr. Alan J Whiteley, an attorney for over 30 years. He has negotiated government defense contracts and served as counsel for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. Whiteley is legal counsel for the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) based in Prince Edward County, and is challenging various aspects of Ontario’s Green Energy Act via a Judicial Review.

According to Mr Whiteley, the Green Energy Act (GEA) has harmed the health of rural residents, the sustainability of the natural environment, water quality, local economies, rural roads, property values, municipal assessment taxes, heritage properties and the safety of residents and communities.

The implementation of the GEA is biased in favour of proponents of renewable energy projects and against individuals, communities and municipalities. In many cases the Ministries improperly delegate their statutory powers to others, and continually grant consent to renewable energy projects without any cost/benefit analysis.

Industrial wind facilities must be placed in rural agricultural areas of Ontario and the result has been an industrialization of rural Ontario. Unwilling host municipalities and their residents can not exercise sound planning principles with respect to industrial uses of land within their jurisdiction.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act was changed to prohibit owners of abutting lands from claims for damages caused by fires originating from renewable energy projects.

The Assessment Act, deems the assessed value of a $2.2 million wind turbine tower at only 4.6% of the current value of the industrial wind turbine. This discrimination violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, which guarantees equal protection and equal benefit of the law to all Canadians. The GEA contravenes several international conventions to which Canada is a party, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

According to Whiteley, the Canadian legal system faces an access to justice crisis. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that there must be practical and effective ways to challenge the legality of state action. However, ordinary citizens have unequal access to costly justice that wealth can provide. Huge corporations can bully and manipulate the law in their own interests while ordinary citizens lack the means to begin a legal proceeding. If the traditional cost rules of the justice system are revised, citizens will regain their right to challenge government action.

The day provided information on issues that affects us all – dirty power and limited access to legal justice.

Catherine Mitchell – a concerned citizen

MAWT 1
Barb Ashbee, Carmen Krogh, David Stetzer, Alan Whiteley.  Photo Credit: News Alert Niagara

 

Information event held April 21, 2018 co- hosted by MAWT and WLGWAG

Political manipulated law is a slippery slope

slippery slope

Published: March 29, 2018|The Creemore Echo|Letters & Opinion By 

Editor:

It pains me to find that my faith in Ontario’s judicial system has turned into cynicism.

In the matter of appealing the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change approval for WPD Corporation to erect eight 475-ft high wind turbines bordering County Rd. 91, west of the 4th line, (Fairview Wind Farm) a long, thorough and expensive Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) Hearing was held in the summer of 2016

Two issues were addressed:

• Endangerment to human health, citing their proximity to the Collingwood Regional Airport and Kevin Elwood’s aerodrome.

• Irreparable harm to an endangered species, citing the impact on the habitat of little brown myotis bats.

The ERT found in favour of the appellants on both issues! That should have been the end of it, with the MOE approval revoked.

Notwithstanding WPD having every opportunity to present remedial arguments during the hearing, the MOE, being unhappy with the results of the hearing, provided WPD an additional month to provide a remedial argument. WPD failed to do so. The MOE then allowed WPD another week, with WPD failing again.

However, WPD did concede the ‘Danger to human health’ issue. Again, that should have been the end of it, with the MOE approval revoked.

In complete disregard of the Tribunal’s ruling and WPD’s conceding the health issue, the MOE invoked the necessity of a remedial hearing. In other words, give us the ruling we want. Since the MOE appoints the ERT and pays their salaries (a conflict of interest) they applied unusual pressure on the Tribunal.

In spite of MOE’s meddling, the ERT rose to the occasion and again found in favour of the appellants. The MOE’s approval was revoked. There will be no Fairview Wind Farm… YEA!

If this is a sample of what we can expect of government manipulating the wheels of justice to further their agendas, we can only become more cynical.

It’s a slippery slope!

John Wiggins,

Collingwood.

Public Information Event

Special Public Information Event:

UNDERSTANDING STRAY VOLTAGE & INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES

Saturday April 21st 2018
1pm to 5pm -doors open @ 12:00pm
Covenant Christian School, 6470 Regional Rd 14, Smithville L0R 2A0
Free Event – Donations Graciously Accepted

Dine-With-Us Option: A full course, pay-per-plate offering is available for the evening portion of this event. Alan Whiteley will be our featured speaker.
Time: 6pm
Dinner Cost: $20/plate
Dinner Includes: Salad, Chicken (pancetta cream sauce), roasted potatoes, vegetables, dessert and tea/coffee.

Please email strayvoltagedinner@gmail.com or 905-562-7159 (Mary) to confirm your attendance for the Dine-With-Us paid dinner event.
Please RSVP by April 11, 2018

Wind Turbines, Stray Voltage & Harm Reduction

Speakers:
David Stetzer:
IWT Fingerprint, Tuned Filters, IEEE Standards & Regulations, Hydro Regulations, How Stray Voltage Affects Us All.
Carmen Krogh: Preliminary Results: The Vacated Home Research Study
Interactive Panel Discussion with:
David Stetzer, Carmen Krogh, Alan Whiteley & Barb Ashbee
Dine-With-Us Option: A full course, pay-per-plate offering is available for the evening portion of this event. Lawyer Alan Whiteley will be our featured speaker.

More about:
David Stetzer
Dave Stetzer has been an electrician by training, education and experience for over 30 years. In 1975, Dave founded Stetzer Electric, Inc. and remains the president of the company to this day. Since the firm’s inception, Dave has specialized in power control in industry, municipalities, and motor control centers. For more than the past decade, Dave has focused more attention on power quality analysis and troubleshooting, which led to the founding of Stetzer Consulting. Dave Stetzer is a senior member of the IEEE (Institute of Electrical & Electrical Engineers), an expert witness in litigation suits in ground currents and power quality, co-author of peer reviewed papers in journals, producer of the documentary ‘Beyond Coincidence: The Perils of Electrical Pollution’, consultant for Ministers of Health in Kazakhstan, Middle East and Government Health Officials in Russia. He continues to be a sought after, integral contributor in research projects around the world.
Carmen Krogh
Carmen M Krogh is a full time volunteer and published researcher regarding health effects and industrial wind energy facilities. She shares information with communities; individuals; federal, provincial and public health authorities, wind energy developers; the industry; and others. An author and a co-author of peer reviewed articles and conference papers presented at wind turbine noise scientific conferences. A retired pharmacist whose career includes: senior executive positions at a teaching hospital (Director of Pharmacy); a drug information researcher at another teaching hospital; a Director of a professional organization; a Consultant at the Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs (Health Canada); and a Director (A) at Health Canada (PMRA). She is the former Director of Publications and Editor in Chief of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties (CPS), the book used by physicians, nurses, and health professionals for prescribing information in Canada.
Alan Whiteley
Alan J Whiteley has been an attorney for over 30 years, is accredited by the Upper Canada Law Society, and has a consistently high rating with the Martindale-Hubbell Register of Preeminent Lawyers. He has been the Editor of University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, negotiated government defence contracts, and served as counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee (Canada). His experience includes serving as counsel for the arbitration of international commercial disputes as well as having served as counsel for internationally-based aerospace and airport organizations. He is legal counsel for the County Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy (CCSAGE) based in Prince Edward County, and in this capacity has undertaken to challenge various aspects of Ontario’s Green Energy Act via a Judicial Review. Mr Whiteley will be participating on the panel discussion and offering observations on the hurdles to be overcome to obtain legal remedy from experiencing negative effects of IWTs.
Barb Ashbee
Barb and her husband were happy and healthy before a wind turbine project started up around their home causing serious adverse health effects that drove them to leave. Testing in their home showed out of compliance noise, infrasound and electrical pollution. It was a battle to get any meaningful information or assistance from the government. After hiring a lawyer, they settled with the company, were able to relocate and their symptoms subsided after moving. Almost 10 years later, the anger and dismay at what the government is doing to citizens has not lessened as the toll rises. Barb continues to advocate for resolution for victims impacted by wind energy and has communicated with and attended countless government and community meetings over the years.

MAWT Logo NarrowWLGWAG logo

Niagara Wind facing lawsuit

“Two families are taking legal action related to a plume of construction dust from a Niagara Region Wind Farm construction site in 2015 that they say has left them with physical and mental health issues, as well as property damage and monetary losses.”

WL_AUG06_turbine_dust1_am___Gallery
Dust spreading from the construction site in 2015 of one of  the 77 Enercon wind turbines that make up the Niagara Region Wind Farm. Photo: Stefanos Karatopis

Scott Rosts|Grimbsy Lincoln News|March 7, 2018

Local families take legal action after turbine construction incident

Claims relate to construction dust in summer of 2015

Two families are taking legal action related to a plume of construction dust from a Niagara Region Wind Farm construction site in 2015 that they say has left them with physical and mental health issues, as well as property damage and monetary losses.

Raymond Sherman and Alexandra Karatopis Sherman, along with their three children, and Stefanos Karatopis — the brother of Alexandra — are named as plaintiffs in court documents that were originally filed last summer, about two years after the July 23, 2015 incident. A list of 25 defendants, including 10 individuals whose identities are unknown, are named in the notice, ranging from stakeholders in the Niagara Region Wind Farm, to construction companies and employees to the Township of West Lincoln and Region of Niagara.

In court documents, the plaintiffs allege workers at the wind farm on Regional Road 20 in West Lincoln were discharging a construction dust which made its way into the house. While the parents were not home, the Sherman children were and the documents allege they had difficulty breathing and their eyes were burning.

Read Article

Taxpayers pay proving government compromised safety

“As the community proved at the ERT hearing, this project should not have been approved in the first place,” he said. “It’s outrageous the government could be so negligent, making it necessary for the citizens to protect the public, then hide behind flawed legislation that robs the tribunal appointed by them in overlooking their bad decisions to award costs to the citizens who successfully proved the government compromised people’s safety.”

STA_winddecision02_au24_ia_Super_Portrait
Clearview Township councillor Kevin Elwood. – Metroland file photo

ERT rules no cost relief to challenge Clearview wind turbine decision

By Ian Adams|Wasaga Sun | Feb 27, 2018

Local taxpayers will be on the hook for the successful challenge to a plan to erect eight turbines in Clearview Township.

The same goes for Kevin and Gail Elwood, John Wiggins, and the residents’ group Preserve Clearview, after the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed an application for costs related to their appeal of a decision to grant WPD a renewable energy application for the Fairview Wind Project.

The tribunal ultimately ruled last August to revoke that approval on the basis the planned 500-foot-tall turbines presented a serious risk to human health because of the proximity of the project to the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Clearview Aerodrome owned by the Elwoods.

Read article

Niagara Wind Being Sued

Construction dust from a wind turbine project in Niagara is behind a $10 million lawsuit

Newstalk 610 CKTB|Bonnie Heslop| January 31, 2018

18402941_1260334647419075_8962178219347933333_n
Photo Credit: Stephanos K.

Construction dust from a wind turbine project in Niagara is behind a $10 million lawsuit that is making its way through the court system.

St.Ann’s resident Stefanos Karatopis says he was visiting his sister back in 2015 when cement dust from a nearby Wind Farm project blew into the home sending 5 people to hospital.

Karatopis, who is also a member of the Niagara Land Owners Association says the dust was so bad it was hard to return home.

Lawyer Akradi Bouchelev represents Karatopis and says the dust contains very harmful chemicals that can impact a person’s health.

The $10 million dollar personal injury and damage claim has been filed against the Wind Farm, construction companies involved, the Niagara Region, and West Lincoln.

Bouchele says some have filed a statement of defence and some have asked for a delay.

He says the next stage is the examination of discovery.

Construction dust sends family fleeing to ER (Niagara This Week, July 31, 2015)