Case No. ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY

During the public comment period under the EBR, the MECP received 49 written submissions, including two submissions from KNG that opposed the issuance of the proposed ECA, criticized the adequacy of the ESDM Report and the AAR, and raised objections about the potential adverse effects of the proposed facility and activities.26 Similarly, all public comments received by the MECP that are accessible. [...] There is a close relationship between the two branches of the leave test and a finding that the decision is “unreasonable” is related to a determination that the decision could result in “significant harm” to the environment: While the EBR does not explicitly deal with the relationship between these two dimensions, there is a strong presumption – inherent in the Preamble and Part I of the Act – th. [...] Given the preamble and legislative objectives of the EBR, it has been long- established that the two branches of the EBR leave test should not be considered separately or in isolation from each other: Attention has been drawn to these fundamentals of the EBR because they underscore the inescapable connection between 41(a) – the reasonableness test, and 41(b) – the “significant harm to the environm. [...] While the two-pronged test in section 41 is stringent, the standard of proof is lower than the civil standard (e.g., balance of probabilities), and must be applied in conjunction with the stated intent of the EBR to enable the people of Ontario to participate in the making of environmentally significant decisions by the Government of Ontario.43 46. [...] The SEV also contains a commitment that the Ministry will consider “cumulative effects” when making environmentally significant decisions: The Ministry considers the cumulative effects on the environment, the interdependence of air, land, water and living organisms, and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society.64 64.