On April 10, 2012, the Township of Wainfleet (the
"Township") enacted a municipal by-law pursuant to the
Municipal Act, 2001, that was intended to restrict the
construction of wind energy projects within its municipal limits.
The by-law expressly applied to all property located within the
Township, and was premised on three core provisions:
All industrial wind turbines within the Township were subject
to a minimum setback distance of 2 km from any
Noise emitted from any industrial wind turbine within the
Township was not to exceed 32 dB at the nearest
The Developer of a wind energy project within the Township was
to provide a 100 per cent indemnification for any loss of property
value or adverse health effect caused by an industrial wind
Wainfleet Wind Energy Inc. ("WWE"), a proponent of a
proposed wind energy project in the Township and the applicant in
Wainfleet Wind Energy Inc. v. Township of
Wainfleet), sought to challenge the validity of the by-law in
Superior Court, as WWE's proposed project would have been
entirely prohibited by the by-law's setback requirements. WWE
based its application on several grounds, including:
The by-law was void for vagueness and uncertainty;
The by-law was in conflict with provincial law; and
The by-law was outside of the Township's municipal
In concluding that the by-law was invalid and without effect,
Superior Court Justice Reid found that the definition of
"property" incorporated into the core provisions was
sufficiently unintelligible to render the by-law void on the basis
of vagueness and uncertainty. Specifically, the by-law incorporated
undefined terms such as "inhabitants of all species used for
private or business or public purposes" into the definition of
"property". As the term "property" could not be
interpreted in any logical or reasoned way that would allow Courts
to apply the core provisions, the by-law could have no legal
While the Wainfleet decision might be seen as an
excellent example of how not to draft a municipal by-law
intended to control wind energy projects, the most interesting
aspects of the decision do not speak to this point. Given that the
Court found the by-law to be of no effect due to the drafting
deficiencies, its analysis of whether the by-law was in conflict
with provincial law was provided on a gratuitous basis (i.e., in
On this issue, the Court concluded that, while the by-law may
have created a "potential" for conflict with the
Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009(the Green
Energy Act), it did not in and of itself create an actual
conflict which would render the by-law of no effect. However, the
Court did identify two scenarios where such a by-law would
frustrate the Green Energy Act's purpose of removing
barriers to and fostering the growth of renewable energy projects,
Where a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) has been issued for a
project authorizing wind turbine locations that contravene the
municipal by-law; and
Where the effect of the municipal by-law was to entirely
prevent the construction of wind energy projects anywhere within
Based on the foregoing, the Wainfleet decision has some
inherent uncertainty. On one hand, municipalities have legal
authority to enact by-laws that establish setbacks and noise limits
applicable to wind energy projects, and such by-laws are not
necessarily in actual conflict with provincial law. On the other
hand, where a REA has been issued for a project that contravenes
such a by-law, the by-law is of no effect.
Therefore, from a practical perspective the question remains: do
Ontario municipalities have any actual ability to restrict
renewable energy projects?
The answer is yet to be seen given the vast array of
restrictions that could be placed on projects in the interests of
protecting human health and mitigating nuisance. What is clear,
however, is that municipalities seeking to control (stop) renewable
energy projects, will need to resort to more sophisticated controls
than setbacks and noise limits. How the Courts will view such
municipal restrictions in other contexts, and whether they will be
perceived as frustrating the purposes of the Green Energy
Act, will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Special thanks to Joshua Zhang and Megan Strachan for their
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The prospect of an internal investigation raises many thorny issues. This presentation will canvass some of the potential triggering events, and discuss how to structure an investigation, retain forensic assistance and manage the inevitable ethical issues that will arise.
From the boardroom to the shop floor, effective organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workplace. This presentation will explore effective strategies to promote diversity, defeat bias and encourage a broader community outlook.
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
Canada is a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary democracy and a federation comprised of ten provinces and three territories. Canada's judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches of Government.
The Government of Alberta recently announced a number of policy changes that will impact the Alberta Electricity Market, composed of its generators, transmitters, distributors, retailers, electricity consumers and wholesale electricity market.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).