|
Administrative - Appeals - Premature if Interlocutory (4). Synergy Underground Utilities Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks)
In Synergy Underground Utilities Inc. et al. v. Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal [under EPA 145.6 'Appeals from Tribunal'], this brought against "the decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal .... which denied the appellants’ request for a stay of aspects of the January 30, 2026 Director’s Order of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (the “Ministry”)".
Here the court considers the EPA OLT tribunal appeal route and the appealability of interlocutory orders:[3] The facts of this case arise in the context of the Ministry’s regulation of on-site and excess soil management in Ontario: On-Site and Excess Soil Management, O. Reg. 406/19 (the “Excess Soil Regulation”), made under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 (the “EPA”).
....
[21] The appellants have appealed the Stay Dismissal Decision to this court, pursuant to s. 145.6 of the EPA.
....
LAW AND APPLICATION
Jurisdiction
[23] The authority to hear an appeal is found in the governing legislation. In this case, the appellants’ appeal of the Stay Dismissal Decision to this court is governed by s. 145.6 of the EPA, which provides as follows:Appeals from Tribunal
145.6 (1) Any party to a hearing before the Tribunal under this Part may appeal from its decision or order on a question of law to the Divisional Court in accordance with the rules of court.
Decision of Tribunal not automatically stayed on appeal
(3) An appeal of a decision of the Tribunal to the Divisional Court under this section does not stay the operation of the decision, unless the Tribunal orders otherwise.
Divisional Court may grant or set aside stay
(4) If a decision of the Tribunal is appealed to the Divisional Court under this section, the Divisional Court may,
(a) stay the operation of the decision; or
(b) set aside a stay ordered by the Tribunal under subsection (3). [24] The right of appeal from a decision of an administrative tribunal is limited to final decisions, absent clear language that there is a right to appeal an interlocutory decision: Adelaide Metcalfe (Township) v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality), 2025 ONCA 180, at paras. 15-16; Penney v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 3874, at para. 10; Kahissay v. Intact Insurance, 2022 ONSC 6357, at paras. 4-7. The fact that courts may intervene on judicial review where proceedings before a tribunal appear at the outset to be jursdictionally defective does not permit a court to invent an appeal procedure for interlocutory rulings where none exists: Roosma v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. (1988), 1988 CanLII 5633 (ON HCJDC), 66 O.R. (2d) 18 (Div. Ct.), at para. 31.
[25] Courts must respect the Legislature’s decisions with respect to institutional design: Vavilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 SCC 65, at para. 36; Penney, at para. 26. The appellants acknowledge that s. 145.6 of the EPA and s. 24(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 24(1), do not permit appeals of interlocutory decisions: Baker v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of the Environment), 2013 ONSC 4142, at paras. 34-40; Adelaide Metcalfe, at para. 17. Through a plain reading of s. 145.6 of the EPA it is evident that the Legislature chose (a) not to confer a right to appeal interlocutory decisions of the Tribunal to the Divisional Court; and (b) deliberately chose to impose environmental compliance responsibility on orderees during the interim period pending resolution of an appeal, unless and until the order is stayed by the Tribunal.
|
