Category Archives: legal challenges

Bat remedy hearing concludes

brown-bat

Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson demands to know why wind power developers get a remedy hearing on endangered bats when harm has been proven. Minister Murray replied he would have to resign if he intervenes in the independence of the Environmental Tribunal process but it is the Green Energy Act that allows wind projects to be approved. Under the Green Energy Act the Minister has authority to intervene.  The Minister to resign over the harm caused by wind projects?  What an interesting idea!

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Turbine Hearing Concludes

Collingwood | by Catherine Thompson  

yet more submissions in long-running case

A hearing to do with a wind turbine proposal near Stayner took one day instead of three.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed WPD Canada to have a Remedy Hearing to present ways to reduce harm to natural heritage, mainly the Little Brown Bat.

The hearing, held in Collingwood council chambers, was originally to start on Monday, but that day was cancelled because a witness was unavailable. The hearing, on Tuesday, heard from three witnesses.

Dr. Scott Reynolds, presenting for WPD Canada, via Skype, says they would slow down the turbine speed when bats are in the air in an effort to decrease the number of bat deaths.

The second witness, Susan Holroyd, a wildlife biologist specializing in bats, appeared by Skype, on the appellant, Preserve Clearview’s side.

The third and last witness was Ecologist Sarah Mainguy, also for the opponent’s side. She told the hearing there are huge uncertainties in this application such as the number of bats and their exact route in the areas of the turbines. She added that the mitigation suggestions from WPD Canada are not good enough.

Witnesses and lawyers could not comment on the hearing proceedings, but Chuck Magwood of Preserve Clearview, was in the audience.  He says he agrees with their witnesses that one dead Little Brown Bat, which is an endangered species, is too many.

WPD has until March 31st to make written submissions, the opponents have four weeks to reply and then another two weeks for WPD to rebut the reply, taking the latest round in the turbine discussions to May 12th.

Magwood says he expects a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal in June.

READ AT: http://www.bayshorebroadcasting.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=91434

 

Is there a remedy to Industrial Wind Turbines?

Is there a Remedy for People Suffering, Health Issues, Financially, etc. from Industrial Wind Turbines in Ontario ?– approximately 7700 planned for Ontario.

shawn-tricia
Trish & Shawn Drennan

“Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!”

The Goderich Superior Court Room was filled to capacity when Shawn and Trish Drennan went to Court on January 19th to reverse the negative impact that the 140 Industrial Wind Turbine Project (K2), two transformer stations and several transmission lines have on their family, home and their Heritage Farm operation.

They put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind their words.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer,… “that a lawyer could not have done a better job in arguing the case”.  Most felt the judge really got it and it was in no small part because of the time, work, expense and personal sacrifice they both have given to their case to put the facts on the table.

shawn-drennan
Shawn Drennan at home on his farm operation

Shawn, “presented himself”, and told the court that the government has created an impossible barrier when he has to prove “Serious Harm to human health” at an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), when the turbines have not been installed or in operation yet. The ERT appeals and Divisional Court Hearings occur prior to the IWTs becoming operational. The Divisional Court also confirmed that the ERT’s lack the jurisdiction to determine the validly of section 47.5 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and its constitutionality. In addition, to date, there appears to be no definition for the term “Serious Harm” even after all the ERT’s, Judicial Reviews and Divisional Court cases here in Ontario.

Shawn declared that the many witnesses who have come forward to testify that they have been harmed by turbines all over this province have not been given the gravity and respect they deserve for putting their testimony forward.  Shawn told the hearing that the government and K2 knew the turbines will harm people even before wind project proposals and permits went ahead.  The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) lobbied the government to remove Infra and Low Frequency Sound regulations and testing when the Green Energy Act was written and this requirement was subsequently removed. If Judge Raikes had asked, at least half or more of the people in the court room that day could have stood up and said, “ I am the evidence of harm from Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs).”

Shawn told the hearing that the difference between then, (ERT Hearings prior to operation) and now (May 29 2015), is that now the switch has been turned on, and the IWT’s are operational and we are being harmed.k2-wind-turbine

Judge Raikes challenged K2 and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennans have besides more time in court. We all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. “Most people do not want to move away to begin with but do so to regain health.  They  are often penalized yet again when they have to lower the sales price to even get the home sold.

kingsbridge-120910
Home with a K2 industrial wind turbine just a few hundred metres away

When Judge Raikes looked at the K2 lawyer, Mr Bredt,  the judge tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him, “ So, the Drennans went to the ERT and Divisional Court, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  Bredt replied, “Yes.” which drew gasps of disbelief from the full gallery of people who attended.

When it came time to argue about who should be named as defendants in the Charter Challenge; K2 and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge see both parties try to throw each other under the bus.

Those in attendance are waiting to hear Judge Raikes decision and keep their fingers crossed that Shawn and Trish can move forward in finding a remedy for the harm they have experienced.  This hearing has implications for property owners and people living within at least a 10 km radius of a turbine project here in Ontario.

Thank you, on behalf of a whole lot of us in Ontario.

Dave Hemingway, Reporter, The Landowner

People vs Wind Turbines

vive-a-la-resistance-2Ontario Superior Court- Goderich  January 19, 2017

Congratulations to Trish and Shawn Drennan!

You put a compelling and sensible case together and spoke with passion and the strength of truth behind your words today.  One comment was that some felt they were witnessing an important step in this fight.  I heard, from a lawyer, that a lawyer couldn’t have done a better job in arguing the case.  Most felt the judge really got it and it was in no small part because of the time, work, expense and personal sacrifice you’ve both given to this to put the facts on the table. 

You told the court the govt has put up an impossible barrier when we have to prove at an ERT that a turbine installation that isn’t built yet, will seriously harm us and that the judicial review confirmed the ERT’s decision.

You declared that the many witnesses who have come forward to testify that they have been harmed by turbines all over this province have not been given the gravity and respect they deserve for putting their testimony forward.  You told them the govt and the wind company KNOWS it will harm people even as the proposals and permits go ahead.  And I note that if the judge had asked, at least half or more of the people in that room today could have stood up and said, I am the evidence of harm from turbines.”

You told them that the difference between then and now, is now the switch has been turned on, the turbines are running and you too are being harmed.

The judge challenged the wind company and the MOE to tell him what remedy the Drennins have besides more time in court and we all watched them try to answer to no avail, because as was pointed out the only remedy right now is to move away. 

When the judge looked at the wind company lawyer and tried to paraphrase what the lawyer had just said to him with, “ So, the Drennins went to the ERT and judicial review, have complained to MOE, and still have no remedy, so it’s tough luck for them?  The wind company lawyer replied, “Yes.” which drew gasps of disbelief from the full gallery of people who attended.  

When it came time to argue about who should be named as defendants; wind company and /or govt., it was interesting to watch the judge watch both try to throw each other under the bus.

I await to hear the decision and keep fingers crossed that you can move forward. 

Thank you on behalf of a whole lot of us.

Lorrie Gillis

 

Constitutional Challenge Court: January 19, 2017

shawn-tricia

On January 19, 2017  Shaun and Trish Drennan  will continue to pursue the Constitutional Challenge against the Green Energy Act.  Self represented this time- they will be bringing before the Ontario Superior Court a revised statement of claim seeking remedy found in the protections guaranteed in Canada’s constitution.  Most importantly the action’s goal is to actively use the law to grant relief and prevention of harm from wind powered complexes.

WHAT: Constitutional Challenge  WHEN: January 19, 2017  10 am

WHERE: Goderich Court House (Ontario Superior Court-Divisional)

Unite The Fight

In 2014  four families (Dixon, Ryan, Drennan, Koplein) acted as the appellants leading the novel case. Falconers LLP acted on behalf of the families.  The Court’s decision failed to move the contested issues towards the desired resolution. Documents from the hearing can be reviewed at: http://www.falconers.ca/casestudy/wind-turbines-drennan/

dscn4286
Ontario Superior Court

The renewable energy approvals for  K2 Wind, Amrow Wind and St.Columban Wind remain in the  sights and cross hairs of law and legal argument. If the action succeeds it will impact statutory authorities enabling wind power.

Mothers Against Wind Turbines joined forces with other community- based interest groups  that formed the Community Coalition (14 groups in total) which was accepted as interveners in the  original hearing in 2014.   (Lambton County was accepted as an independent intervener)

Please show your support to Shaun and Trish.  Your seats in the seats would be appreciated. dscn4290

Remedy hearing proceeds for wind turbines

z-windmillsBy    January 6, 2017

Wpd will be given an opportunity to provide remedial action after a tribunal ruled wind turbines to be located near two aerodromes in Clearview Township threaten the health and safety of pilots, and little brown bats.

The Environmental Review Tribunal heard from parties during conference calls in December on procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remainder of the hearing. It was determined the remedy phase of the hearing to be held in Collingwood from Feb. 27 to March 1.

The decision is in response to a request by wpd Fairview Wind Incorporated to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies to address the Tribunal’s Oct. 7 finding that engaging in the project in question in accordance with the impugned renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to animal life, plant life or the natural environment. None of the parties has requested an opportunity to produce evidence or make submissions on the Tribunal’s finding of serious harm to human health.

As one of the appellants, the Township of Clearview will play a peripheral role in the upcoming remedy hearing, the extent of which has yet to be determined, said township solicitor Harold Elston.

Why wpd would want to address the former while accepting the latter, Elston said, “that’s The $64,000 Question”. He said there is some speculation that it could affect some other project where bats are a factor.

READ MORE: http://creemore.com/remedy-hearing-proceeds-for-wind-turbines/

Wind Infrastructure and Fatal Collisions

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Who is liable?

It can no longer be said that wind infrastructure placements are an accident waiting to happen.  Guardrails, junction boxes and monster transmission poles are all part and parcel of any wind powered installation. Under the Green Energy Act normal planning controls have been removed from the jurisdiction of local municipalities. This has seen transmission poles placed precariously close to road edges in the right of ways along our public roads.  These “engineered” marvels are more then visual blight or examples of questionable planning as they are claiming human lives in multiple fatal collisions.  Recently a transmission pole owned by Kerwood Wind ILP project which is a subsidiary of NextEra was involved in a collision that claimed the life of the car driver and resulted in serious injuries to the passenger .

READ HERE: http://www.strathroytoday.ca/default.asp?pid=9149287&wireid=02598_Kerwood_Road_Fatality_072156#.V_4p2GvbakF.twitter

(Photos Courtesy of Ontario Wind Resistance: Infrastructure located in Kent- Lambton- Middlesex for the wind projects)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

MPP Monte McNaughton of Kent- Lambton- Middlesex wrote to Minister of Energy Glen Thibeault asking Who is liable?

Letter to Minister of Energy from MPP McNaughton; Nov.10.16

 

APPEC Report on the Remedy Hearing for the White Pines Wind Project

Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County

update2In mid-November the Tribunal issued its decisions on our motions. While some were unsuccessful, overall we were encouraged by the results and with two decisions in particular. We are very pleased that the Tribunal has ordered Dr. Reynolds, WPD’s expert on bats, to return for further cross-examination. The Tribunal is also permitting APPEC to produce documents through a qualified expert witness on the government’s recent policy reversal on renewable energy.

We are fortunate in having Tom Adams as our qualified expert witness. Mr. Adams has worked for several environmental organizations and has served on the Ontario Independent Electricity Market Operator Board of Directors. As an energy and environmental advisor and researcher he has given expert testimony before many legislative committees and regulatory tribunals in Canada. Among other things Mr. Adams will testify that Ontario currently has a significant oversupply of energy (more than 10 years’ worth) and that there is…

View original post 612 more words

Environmental Risk Assessment of Water Sources due to wind project

sneddon-law-windWind development includes risk of contamination to water sources. In Scotland planning conditions are to be reviewed in a public hearing for the proposed Sneddon Law Community Wind. The project has appealed to discharge conditions meant to be protective of water sources for its wind power complex.

Sneddon Law Community Wind Project details can be reviewed here: http://www.communitywindpower.co.uk/projects/sneddon/16.htm

An environmental risk assessment hearing was prompted by information contained in the recently published Sneddon Law WF Private Water Supply Risk Assessment (PWS RA): https://app.box.com/s/61683trl1bryoq9sjlyp1wvffufpk945

Dr.Rachel Connor who is Chair Moscow and Waterside Community Council outlines concerns and background in a letter which can be read at the following link: https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2016/11/sneddon-law-windfarm-water-supplies-and-rights-of-representation-request-for-help-from-dr-rachel-connor/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

The public has until 21st December 2016 to submit comments.
Send to the Case Officer: Colin Bell   Colin.Bell@gov.scot

The full case can be viewed at www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk Case No PPA-190-2058 and at
https://www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=117448

PUBLIC NOTICE OF HEARING

 

 

 

Landmark Ruling on Wind Turbine Dispute

DSCN0397.JPGWho owns a wind turbine?

It bears repeating that if you are a land owner who has wind facility infrastructure placed on your property  to seek experienced legal advice in regards to the implications and liabilities of being involved in a wind project.  Take time to review the current title on your property and don’t be surprised to find debentures (totaling in the sum of tens of millions of dollars) and other instruments attached as is the case for many properties hosting projects located in southern Ontario.

In a recent dispute in Illinois a landmark court decision was issued involving a lien placed by a contractor seeking to recover unpaid sums for construction work  done for the Clipper Windpower project.  The owners Postensa Wind Structures USA declared bankruptcy in 2013.

“According to John Kreucher, an attorney with Howard & Howard, this is the nation’s first case that considered whether commercial-scale wind turbines should be deemed personal property or fixtures in a lien dispute. Kreucher also says the importance of the ruling goes beyond the legal filing.”

READ MORE AT: http://nawindpower.com/court-makes-landmark-ruling-on-illinois-wind-turbine-dispute

READ COURT DECISION HERE: