In January, we blogged about how the Divisional Court rejected an argument by anti-wind protestors that the legal test for stopping renewable energy approvals ("REAs") was unconstitutional.
To be successful on an appeal, the appellant must show that the renewable energy approval granted causes serious harm to human health.
At paragraph 88 of its decision, the Divisional Court concluded
...the statutory review test adopted by the Ontario Legislature in EPA ss. 142.1(3) and 145.2.1(2) in respect of the impact on human health of contaminants, such as sound and vibration, discharged from commercial windfarms does not, on its face, depart from the jurisprudential test for establishing a state violation of a person's security of person under section 7 of the Charter.
Despite a fairly significant costs award against the appellants for their loss at the Divisional Court, they nonetheless sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
In May, the Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal.
At this point there is not much left for anti-wind activists left to argue on appeals of REAs. The scientific evidence does not establish that wind farms will cause serious harm to human health, and now the courts have said that there is nothing unconstitutional about the legal test.
It remains to be seen whether individuals will nonetheless continue to appeal REAs for wind projects on the basis of human health; but if so, it cannot be because the appellants reasonably expect to win.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
