The following letter announces to
CWS that the Warwick Terms of Reference is not acceptable to the MOE because it does not include need and alternative. Therefore, CWS's
EA will not be accepted by the MOE. The announcement is based on the Richmond decision.
Ministry of the Environment 2
St Clair Ave. West TorontoON M4V ILS
September 16, 2003
Mr. Kevin Bechard
Vaughan ON L4K 11(2
Dear Mr. Bechard:
ENV97O-MC-2 003- 1220
RE: Status of
the CWS Warwick Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment
As a proponent who has already received approval for a Terms of Reference
(ToR) and is completing a "focussed" environmental assessment (EA), I would like to inform you about a recent court decision
that may have implications for your project. On June 17, 2003, the Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, issued its
decision about the judicial review of the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Richmond Landfill undertaking. The decision quashed
the Ministers September 16, 1999 approval of the ToR for the EA. The ToR in question was a "focussed" ToR which was submitted
under s. 6(2) (c)of the Environmental Assessment Act: (EAA).
The effect of the decision is that the Minister currently cannot approve
any focussed" ToRs submitted under a. 6(2)(c) of the EAA. The Crown is seeking leave to appeal the Courts decision. The notice
of motion for leave to appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal on June 30, 2003. The application for leave to appeal asserts
that the Minister of the Environment has the authority to approve a "focussed" ToR submitted under s~ 6(2)(c) of the EAA.
This decision does not affect the Ministers ability to approve a ToR and subsequent EA that includes all of the information
required in s. 6.1(2) of the EAA.
As a result of the decision, the Minister cannot approve an EA submission
based on a "focussed" ToR that was approved by the Minister under s. 6(2)(c) of the EAA. The ministry will keep you apprised
of any developments with respect to the EA. program, as the appeal progresses. It may be appropriate for you to seek independent
advice on how to proceed with your EA.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Andrzej
Dominski, Manager of the EA Project Co-ordination Section, at (416) 314-796L
James OMara, Director
Environmental Assessment & Approvals Branch
c: Andrzej Dominski, Manager, FAPC
In April of 1999, the WWLC argued the province had no need for a mega-dump
at Warwick and CWS must be required to demonstrate need before proceeding with the EA.
We hired an independent, professional engineering firm, RIS, to
conduct a study of all landfill capacity within the province. Following is the study, in both text and chart.
CWS did not disagree with the data but argued instead that "need" really meant
corporate need to grow CWS/WMI financially.
The issue of need has become even more significant recently, given the citizens'
victory at Richmond when Divisional Court ruled in June that CWS was indeed required to study need in its Terms of Reference
for the Richmond site. Consequently, the Richmond ToR has been quashed and CWS has appealed the court's decision.
"Down in the Dumps," CWS Consultant Paul Murray's article on why the Province needs the Warwick landfill expansion.
RIS Needs Study: Chart Data
RIS Text Analysis of Disposal Need
CWS Now Claims Toronto Needs Warwick
Although CWS refused to include need in the Terms of Reference and the EA process,
CWS's Kevin Bechard in the Sarnia Observer, July, 26, 2003, now claims the
province "needs" the Warwick site for Toronto garbage. We've seen no data to support these claims.
a disposal shortfall and deficit in Ontario and it's significant and compelling.We're currently exporting one third of our
waste to neighbouring jurisdictions. Our response to that is to develop additional landfill which is safe and environmentally
acceptable within our own border.
"It's a significant issue we are addressing, in part, through our own initiative
for the increase in service capability of the Warwick landfill."
CWS. July 26, 2003
Toronto trash could be coming to county: The Observer (Sarnia)