|
Landfill expansions may
cause concern for neighbouring landowners with respect to the impact of
leachate on both ground and surface water and possible adverse effects on
agricultural operations. What is the obligation upon a company proposing
such a landfill expansion to include in the environmental assessment both
the need for the expansion from a public interest perspective and
alternatives to satisfying that need?
An Ontario appellate court
recently reviewed a decision of the provincial Minster of the Environment
approving terms of reference for the environmental assessment of a proposed
landfill expansion in which the proponent specifically stated that it would
not address alternatives to the proposed expansion. Both the Minister and
the proponent relied upon amendments to Ontario’s Environmental Assessment
Act (EAA) which provide that the Minister may approve terms of reference
which permit an environmental assessment to consist of information “other
than” prescribed requirements which include a description of the rationale
for the undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and
alternatives to the undertaking. In interpreting the meaning to be given to
the statutory amendment, the Court stated:
“…if ‘other’ means ‘in
addition to’ then the proponent of an undertaking would be required to
include in an EA all the components listed…In that case, when approving
the (terms of reference) the Minister ‘may’, in addition, seek ‘other’
information. If, on the other hand, ‘other’ means ‘different from’ then a
proponent, at its own option and discretion, may be relieved from
fulfilling the historical requirements for an EA and simply ‘design its
own’.”
The Court decided that the
meaning of the amendment of the EAA was ambiguous and that it should be
interpreted in a manner that promotes its legislative purpose while at the
same time consistent with its legislative text. In quashing the decision of
the Minister approving terms of reference which would have permitted the
environmental assessment to proceed without consideration of the public
interest or alternatives to the expansion, the Court held:
“The purpose of the
legislation…includes the betterment of Ontarians by wise management of the
environment. This purpose seems to focus on the betterment of the
individual and not the betterment of a corporate proponent. In addition to
purpose, the Minister is obliged to consider the public interest. The
specific requirement to consider public interest suggests an
interpretation that favours public over private interests. The concept of
‘wise management’ and a broad definition of ‘environment’ both lend
support to the concept that a project would not be approved that did not
address a public, as opposed to a private, need or rationale.”
The Court specifically
rejected the Ministry’s position which favoured “an approach that provides a
proponent with a streamlined mechanism for obtaining government approval”.
Whatever “other” information proponents of landfill expansions may provide
in connection with obtaining approval of terms of reference for their
environmental assessment, proponents must include in their terms of
reference provision for consideration of need for the expansion from the
perspective of public interest and both alternative methods of carrying out
the expansion and alternatives to the expansion. |