Canada: Divisional Court Confirms The Constitutionality Of The Review Process For Renewable Energy Projects Under Ontario’s EPA

On December 29, 2014, the Ontario Divisional Court released its decision in Dixon v. Director, Ministry of the Environment. In this appeal of three Environmental Review Tribunal decisions, the Court dealt with a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Renewable Energy Approval hearing provisions found in ss. 142.1 and 145.2.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Among other things, the appellants, who opposed the development of various wind turbine projects, argued that the hearing provisions infringed their rights to security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter because the test they had to meet under the EPA – "serious harm to human health" – was too onerous. The Court rejected this argument, as well as others, and confirmed that the REA hearing provisions were constitutionally valid. On January 13, 2015, the appellants, having lost before the Divisional Court, sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Brief Facts

In 2013 and 2014, the Director of the Ministry of the Environment authorized the construction and operation of three wind turbine generation farm projects: the St Columban Wind Project, the K2 Wind Project, and the Armow Wind Project. The Director issued a renewable energy approval (REA) under s. 47.5 of the EPA for each project.

Pursuant to s. 142.1 of the EPA, any person residing in Ontario may require the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) to hold a hearing to review a decision by the Director to issue a REA on the ground that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the REA will cause "serious harm to human health."1 Residents close to the three approved wind turbine project sites required such hearings. In all three cases, the ERT concluded that the residents had not established that engaging in the projects would cause serious harm to human health. The ERT also rejected the various constitutional arguments advanced by the residents.  The ERT therefore dismissed the residents' requests for review.

Grounds of Appeal

In accordance with the appeal provisions under the EPA, the residents appealed to the Divisional Court "on a question of law," advancing five grounds of appeal, including the following key grounds:

  1. The ERT should have struck down as unconstitutional the test set out in the REA hearing provisions of the EPA (i.e., "serious harm to human health") as too strict and therefore contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, or alternatively should have read the test down as only requiring a "reasonable prospect of serious harm to human health."
  2. The ERT should have similarly struck down as unconstitutional the Director's approval powers under s. 47.5 of the EPA and s. 54 of the REA Regulation (which stipulates set back and noise level requirements for renewable wind energy projects),2 as also contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.
  3. The ERT erred in law by ruling that in order to demonstrate serious harm to human health it was necessary for the Appellants to call evidence from a qualified medical expert.

Decision of the Divisional Court

In its decision, the Court addressed the three key grounds of appeal as follows.

(a)  "Serious Harm" and s. 7 of the Charter

The Court rejected the Appellants' arguments that ss. 142.1(3) and 145.2.1(2) violated s. 7 of the Charter. The Appellants unsuccessfully argued that the requirement of "serious harm to human health" was (i) impossibly high to achieve and (ii) exceeded the s. 7 Charterthreshold test. The Court expressly rejected the Appellants' argument that the threshold for physical harm within s. 7 is that the harm be "non-trivial" rather than "serious."

Rather, the Court ruled that the language in the ss. 142.1(3) and 145.2.1(2) of the EPA ("will cause serious harm to human health") "closely tracked the jurisprudential requirement" that a claimant must demonstrate "serious" harm in order to establish a s. 7 Charterviolation of security of the person. The Court agreed with the Director and Approval Holders' arguments that the standard for both psychological harm and for physical harm must be "serious"; the harm envisioned under s. 7 is "serious", whether or not the harm in question is psychological or physical.

Specifically, with respect to psychological harm, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada decision in New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, the Court ruled that "for an infringement of security of the person to be made out, the impugned state action must, when the effects are assessed objectively, have a serious and profound effect on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable sensibility."3

With respect to physical harm, the Court dismissed the appellants' argument that in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35 the Supreme Court established a lesser threshold of proof for a s. 7 violation.  Although Chaoulli allowed that physical harm under s. 7 could be "a condition that is clinically significant to their current and future health", the meaning of "clinically significant" is made clear by other passages in Chaoulli which underscore that there is a threshold requirement of "seriousness" for both physical and psychological harm, such as where serious physical harm is something as serious as the risk of death.

(b)  Whether the ERT had the jurisdiction to review the Director's Decisions to Issue the REAs for Charter compliance

The Appellants argued that the ERT had the jurisdiction to review the REA process conducted by the Director in deciding to issue the REAs in order to determine if the Directors' decisions complied with the Charter. The Court rejected this argument.

The Court ruled that "[t]he jurisdiction of a tribunal to grant a Charter remedy ... depends upon discerning the tribunal's statutory mandate. Put another way, a claimant cannot expand the jurisdiction of a tribunal merely by asserting a Charter remedy; the availability of a Charter remedy to a claimant will depend upon a determination of the tribunal's statutory mandate."

The Court held that the EPA did not grant the ERT jurisdiction to decide questions of law under s. 47.5 of the EPA or s. 54 of the REA Regulation. Rather, the EPA only grants the ERT the limited power to review a Director's REA decision to determine if the approved renewable energy project will cause serious harm to human health (or serious and irreversible harm to plant/animal life).4  Because the Director's approval powers are not within the statutory review mandate of the ERT in a REA hearing, the ERT was correct in concluding that it had no jurisdiction to review them (or the Director's decision) for Charter compliance.

(c)  Whether "serious harm to human health" can be proven without a medical expert

The Court dismissed the appellants' argument that the ERT erred in treating the testimony of "post-turbine witnesses" (witnesses living in the vicinity of existing wind farms) as incapable of proving serious harm or a s. 7 violation in the absence of expert medical evidence establishing a causal link between the wind turbines and the physical or psychological problems testified to by those witnesses.

The Court noted that the ERT assessed the evidence from these fact witnesses in the light of expert medical evidence from the Respondents, which had established that anecdotal "self-diagnosis" by the "post-turbine witnesses" was incapable of establishing a causal connection to wind turbines. In doing so, the ERT was making findings of fact or, at most, mixed fact and law, which were not open to the Court to review under the EPA appeal provisions as they permit the Court only to consider "questions of law."

Significance of Decision 

The Divisional Court's decision in Dixon is only the latest in an ever-growing number of decisions where REAs have been unsuccessfully challenged. A few salient take-aways include:

  1. First, when examining whether the statutory test ("serious harm to human health") is constitutional, the Divisional Court became the first court to comment on the new Health Canada study released in November 2014, which had found no definitive link between wind turbine noise and human health. The Divisional Court noted that the study results "do not permit any conclusions about causality" and held that the study offers "no new relevant evidence" on the constitutionality of the statutory review test ("serious harm to human health"). This finding is consistent with our previous Osler Update which commented that "it appears unlikely that the Study will serve as evidence for wind farm opponents looking to claim "serious harm to human health" within the meaning of Ontario's Environmental Protection Act or a breach of section 7" of the Charter.
  2. Second, the Divisional Court has dealt a significant blow to environmental groups who seek to constitutionalize a Charter right to a "clean environment", making it clear that a violation of the s. 7 Charter right to security of person cannot be trivialized and made easier to meet simply because a claimant asserts a violation due to alleged pollution impacts or risks of an impact. Rather, a Charter claimant in the environmental context still bears the onus of proof to sufficiently demonstrate that the alleged physical and/or psychological impacts are serious and causally connected to the government action or decision at issue.

Now that the appellants have sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, arguing that the Divisional Court erred in its constitutional analysis, we will need to wait to see whether Ontario's highest court decides to weigh in on the matter.


1  EPA, s. 142.1(3)(a). Section 142.1(3)(b) provides that a person may also require a hearing to review a REA decision on the ground that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the REA will cause "serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment."

2  Ontario Regulation 359/09, Renewable Energy Approvals Under Part V.0.1 of the Act, s. 54.

3  See para. 61 (emphasis added).

4  See para. 113. Again, the ERT also has the power to review the Director's decision to determine if the approved renewable energy project will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant/animal life. If the ERT determines that such is the case, it may revoke the REA, alter the Director's decision or issue and order directing the Director to take the actions specified by the ERT.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions