Posts Tagged ‘John LaForet’

Well, we said you should have listened to your constituents, Von Bommel, Wilkinson, Dombrowsky and the rest. Here is the story:

Anti-wind turbine coalition may have cost McGuinty a majority

By Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen October 8, 2011
The Liberals lost 10 seats — almost all in rural Ontario — targeted by the anti-wind coalition Wind Concerns Ontario. Had they retained even one of those seats, they’d have won a majority government.

The Liberals lost 10 seats — almost all in rural Ontario — targeted by the anti-wind coalition Wind Concerns Ontario. Had they retained even one of those seats, they’d have won a majority government.

Photograph by: Peter J. Thompson/National Post,

OTTAWA — Did wind turbines cost the Ontario Liberals their majority in Thursday’s provincial election? A close look at the election results suggests it’s more than possible.

The Liberals lost 10 seats — almost all in rural Ontario — targeted by the anti-wind coalition Wind Concerns Ontario. Had they retained even one of those seats, they’d have won a majority government.

Progressive Conservative or New Democrat candidates defeated seven incumbent Liberals, and won three Liberal seats where the incumbent wasn’t running for re-election. All the ridings are home to industrial turbine projects or have active proposals for some.

Three Liberal cabinet ministers from rural Ontario were among the casualties, including Environment Minister John Wilkinson, an outspoken defender of the government’s green energy policy, who went down to narrow defeat in Perth-Wellington. He won the seat by 6,000 votes in 2007.

Leona Dombrowsky, education minister in Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet, lost by 3,000 votes after winning by 6,000 votes in the last election. And Agriculture Minister Carol Mitchell, whose margin of victory in 2007 was 7,000 votes, fell to Tory Lisa Thompson by 4,500 votes in Huron Bruce.

Liberal incumbents also lost in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Northumberland-Quinte West and Algoma-Manitoulin. Conservative candidates won in two open Liberal seats — Chatham-Kent-Essex and Elgin-Middlesex-London, and the NDP picked up Essex.

All 10 seats were targeted by Wind Concerns Ontario, a coalition of wind opponents that claims to have mobilized thousands of volunteers angry at the Liberal government’s embrace of wind power.

“The Ontario Liberals have spent the last two years denying science, refusing to accept local democracy, and tonight they paid a price,” John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, said in a news release.

“The Liberals have an opportunity to change their course during this minority parliament, act on our concerns and put the interests of people ahead of the special interests behind the industrial wind lobby that cost them their majority,” Laforet said.

Jane Wilson, chair of the North Gower Wind Action Group, which is fighting a proposed eight-to-10 turbine development near their community, said the election results show “the tide has turned.

“If the Liberal government wants to have good government for all Ontario, they’re going to have to look at the concerns of rural communities,” Wilson said.

She credited Wind Concerns Ontario with connecting concerned residents with other communities already living with wind turbines. “It gave them a kind of cohesion and more information than they would have had just acting on their own.”

The proposed turbine development near North Gower came up repeatedly during the campaign, according to Conservative MPP Lisa MacLeod, who represents the area and opposes the project.

Wilson said the project is still awaiting a contract under the province’s Feed-In Tariff program. “I gather that’s connected to whether there’s transmission capacity,” she said, adding: “We don’t believe there is.”


© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Anti+wind+turbine+coalition+have+cost+McGuinty+majority/5524109/story.html#ixzz1aJDBNC4T

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Welcome if you’re just joining us.

Today, we offer an article from The Huffington Post by John Laforet.

The inconvenient truth about green energy jobs

Supporters of wind energy subsidies have historically done a fantastic job of tying the merits of wind energy to the contemporary problems of the day. During the latest worldwide economic crisis, wind energy proponents have heavily touted the number of jobs created by wind energy production as a reason to push these projects forward.

At a time of punishingly high unemployment in North America and Europe that is further compounding the impact increased global competition is having on traditional manufacturing sectors, wind energy backers are heavily trading on the claim that ‘green collar’ manufacturing is the future.

In 2009, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to take Ontario boldly where no North American government had gone before. He introduced a wide ranging piece of legislation called the ‘Green Energy and Green Economy Act‘ and promised at the first press conference to create 50,000 jobs in three years.

While no independent verification for these job figures have been offered, the premier of Ontario continues making new announcements of jobs, and promotes fear mongering that his political opponents would kill those jobs if elected. The reality is no matter who wins Ontario’s Oct. 6 general election, those jobs won’t be there to kill, because in most cases they aren’t real.

In December 2010, the Government of Ontario issued a press release titled “New Wind Tower Plant Creates 700 Jobs in Windsor.” Yet when McGuinty went to tour the facility in September 2011, CS Wind reports just 50 people are employed at the plant.

Fort Erie is home to Ontario’s first wind turbine tower plant owned by DMI Industries. The day before McGuinty’s visit to Windsor, word broke that DMI Industries was laying off “in excess of 50 workers.” Local MPP Kim Craitor has said DMI Industries had sought his help in getting assistance through a federal work-sharing program “until orders pick up again.” With insufficient demand to maintain employment at one wind turbine tower manufacturing plant, it is hard to imagine how Windsor’s fate will be any better or why their order book as a start-up would be more robust than an established international producer.

A lack of demand for products made by ‘green collar’ workers created another embarrassing situation for Dalton McGuinty, who was accused last week of staging a campaign photo opportunity at a solar panel manufacturer Eclipsall Energy that has idled its plant due to a shortage of orders as well, confirmed by plant management.

In Tillsonburg where a wind turbine blade manufacturing plant was credited with creating 900 jobs in a December 2010 government press release, nearly 20 months later, the plant owners report a staff closer to 30 employees.

During an election where spiking energy bills, smart meters, and the government’s handling of opposition to industrial wind turbine development are all playing major roles, two things are becoming clear. Maybe it is a good thing McGuinty’s green energy jobs plan is in shambles. It means plans to give Ontario families and businesses a break by ending the feed-in-tariff program and controversial Samsung deal can help real, private sector employers stay cost competitive through reasonable electricity prices. Cancelling these deals won’t result in thousands of layoffs because they haven’t resulted in anywhere near the employment the government claims.

Jan Carr, the former President of the Ontario Power Authority completed a study of the economic impacts of Ontario’s Green Energy Act and found that each so-called ‘green job’ would result in a taxpayer subsidy of $179,000 per job, per year. Employees at Eclipsall Energy, who recalled their workforce for McGuinty’s photo op, are paid a poverty rate just 20 per cent higher than minimum wage. That subsidy is seven times their pre-tax take home pay. To provide those subsidies, all Ontarians will need to pay an additional $310 per year in electricity costs by 2015 according to Carr.

Spain’s expensive green energy failure can serve as a lesson to Ontario. A recent study shows for every ‘green job’ created 2.2 real jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy due to the impacts on electricity pricing.

During this election, Ontario voters will need decide whether to consider our energy policy as an economic policy. Voters have the opportunity to determine whether our government puts more economic stress on the automotive, natural resources and manufacturing sectors which employ hundreds of thousands of Ontarians to chase a green dream that has so far proven fruitless.

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind.

Read Full Post »

In the Ottawa Citizen today, this story from Lee Greenberg about an ad campaign being launched today by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA) which supports the Green Energy Act. First, third party advocacy for a political party, i.e., the Liberals, is illegal unless you have registered as a lobbyist. Second, they’re not alone. Environmental Defence trotted through Ottawa yesterday with their egregious “Penelope for Canada” campaign in which they have dragooned an eight-year-old to plea with voters to support renewable energy in Ontario. Both organizations are supported by your tax dollars.

Is this the result of people working to protect the environment? No. There is a LOT of money at stake in the industrial wind power generation business, as long as subsidies last (the Conservatives say if they’re elected, those subsidies are gone). No wonder they’re dodging the law to get TV ads out. By the time the wrist slap comes, the damage will be done.

Here is the article.

E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca  Visit http://www.windconcernsontario.org for news throughout the day.

OSEA spending $200,000 on Pro-Liberal Election Ads – contravention of election finances law?

Brad Duguid with Kris Stevens

By Lee Greenberg, Postmedia News
TORONTO — A taxpayer-funded environmental group is starting a television advertising campaign on Friday that supports the province’s green-energy policy without registering as a third party, an apparent violation of the province’s election finances laws.  The only party opposed to the policy is the Progressive Conservative party.

The two ads by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association draw attention to the province’s green-energy policy, which offers rich subsidies to wind and solar producers who agree to strict domestic content provisions, and asks voters to support it in the election.

Both the Liberals, who are using the policy as an economic cornerstone of their platform, and New Democrats, are in favour of the legislation and would continue it, if elected.

The Tories have promised to scrap the program. They say the subsidies — which pay producers rates up to 23 times higher than the market price — are exorbitant.

“On Election Day, support those who support the Green Energy and Economy Act,” a narrator says in both versions of the ad, which will run until Oct. 4 on television stations in Ottawa, Toronto, Barrie, Peterborough, Niagara, Timmins, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury and North Bay.

The two 30-second spots feature idyllic images of renewable energy installations in rural Ontario.

“Twenty-thousand jobs, high-tech jobs, generated in Ontario since 2009,” the narrator says. “It’s about your choice. Ask your candidate ‘are you supporting our future, our economy?’”

Meanwhile, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty was promoting his government’s clean-energy plan in Sault Ste. Marie Thursday.

“Building Ontario wind turbines with Northern Ontario steel is a great example of how our new clean-energy economy is working — reaching all corners of Ontario to deliver good jobs for families and making us more competitive,” he said after a tour of Essar Steel Algoma — the largest employer in Sault Ste. Marie.

Ontario’s election finances act requires all third-party advertisers to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, to identify who is behind the ads and to file a financial report on all election responses. Political ads are defined as messages that either promote or oppose a registered political party.

Kris Stevens, executive director of OSEA, said his organization has not registered and does not believe it needs to. He does not believe the ads are implicitly anti-Conservative.

“We’re addressing a policy,” he said in an interview. “We’re not for or against any party, we’re for a policy.”

He said after consulting a lawyer, the organization attached a written disclaimer at the bottom of the ads stating: “This advertisement refers to renewable energy public policy and does not endorse any particular party or candidate.”

It is unclear how OSEA will afford such a lavish ad blitz.

The not-for-profit organization’s financial statements show it lost $130,000 in 2010 and was forced to borrow nearly $48,500 on a secured line of credit.

It is spending $200,000 on the current campaign.

Among the group’s funding sources, OSEA lists three government organizations, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure and the Ontario Trillium foundation.

Stevens said “less than a quarter” of the group’s funding comes from government agencies and none of it is being used for the advertisements.

A Conservative spokesman questioned the group’s decision to advertise.

“This is a serious issue,” said party spokesman Jason Lieter. “If government money is being spent on ads that advocate or appear to advocate for any particular party or position, that’s unacceptable. We’re going to be looking pretty hard into the financial records of this organization because it appears a big part of their business is a political re-election campaign for Dalton McGuinty.”

Lieter added that the party will look to McGuinty to explain “why taxpayer dollars are being used to advocate a position which he’s staked his campaign on.”

In a lengthy interview, Stevens initially claimed he was unaware of the Conservative policy on green energy. “I looked at the Changebook (platform) and it doesn’t say a whole lot about what they will do,” he said.

When pointed to the section in the document where the party says it will “end the . . . program,” Stevens said the ads had a broader objective.

“We’re asking them (the Progressive Conservative party), ‘where do you want to go?’” he said. “My goal is to get them to hopefully — well, all of the parties — to endorse and support it.”

Any group found in contravention of the election finances law is subject to prosecution by the attorney general. Convictions carry penalties of up to $50,000 for corporations or trade unions, and up to $5,000 for other individuals or groups.

A spokesman for Elections Ontario said the agency doesn’t comment on specific investigations.

The Progressive Conservative party is already locked in a long-standing dispute with another pro-Liberal advertising group. The Working Families Coalition, which is comprised of various large unions, has backed McGuinty and has spent millions in anti-Conservative advertising over the past two election campaigns, including the often quoted 2003 ad that help topple former Premier Ernie Eves.

The ad finished: “Not this time, Ernie. Not this time.”


John Laforet visits Ottawa on his Winds of Change tour of Ontario September 28, 7 PM at the Client Services Centre, 2155 Roger Stevens Drive, North Gower.  If using the 416 exit at Roger Stevens and go west. Candidates have been invited. Please donate: these information events cost hundreds of dollars, from concerned members of our community.

Read Full Post »

Wind Concerns Ontario debuted its “Windyleaks” campaign today, leading off with an internal Ministry of the Environment memo that reveals government staff were well aware of the problems industrial turbines were causing … and that senior levels of government took recommendations and observations from field staff, and then did nothing about it.

More and more, it’s looking like the people of Ontario have grounds for a case of misfeasance against the Liberal government,especially Cabinet ministers.

Appalling. See the story and read the memo at



E-mail the North Gower Wind Action Group at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

John Laforet addressed the Empire Club in Toronto yesterday and served notice to the corporate industrial wind business that the people of Ontario are onto their game and we are NOT standing down. In a masterful, at times whimsical, amusing and then downright forceful speech, Laforet debunked all notions that industrial-scale wind power generation is “green” and painted a horrifying picture of the costs to the people of Ontario in terms of health effects, lost property values, scarred landscapes, and horrendous taxpayer subsidy to a here-today, gone-tomorrow business sector.

He told the audience about what is planned for Thunder Bay: the blasting of the entire top of the escarpment there, including a 150-year-old significant sugar maple bush, to accommodate industrial wind turbines. “Does that sound green to you?” And Wolfe Island, where bird kills are now SIX TIMES what the developer estimated, and the problem is so bad that TransAlta has hired two people to collect dead birds: “Is that an example of Dalton McGuinty’s plan for green jobs in Ontario?”

His assertion that the industrial wind business is really all about natural gas (“Suncor, Enbridge, TransAlta—any of these names familiar to you??”) took many in the audience by surprise, as did his estimate of the billions the corporate wind industry would cost Ontario.

He told the wind business “you better be prepared to tell it to a judge” because the next step for communities and property owners in Ontario is the courts.

The result was a standing ovation.

What followed was a Q & A period with some questions being posed by the wind business, which Laforet parried back with whip-smart answers. Example: What is the basis for your claim that power rates are going to increase by 46% in Ontario? Laforet: Dwight Duncan said that: he’s the Finance Minister, I’ve got to think he’s got the reference behind him. Wind power has been in Europe without problem for 20 years, what do you say to that? Laforet: I say there are more than 400 community organizations against wind in 21 countries in Europe, what does that tell you?

Email us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca and follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind

Read Full Post »

News release from Wind Concerns Ontario, today.


Even though high winds are generating over 1000 megawatts (MW) of wind energy per hour in the province of Ontario today, it means little for Ontarians energy supply mix.  Why? Virtually all of that energy is going to waste says Wind Concerns Ontario President John Laforet. “It is shocking that Ontario’s Green Energy Plan amounts to a ‘pump and dump’ corporate welfare transaction for wind developers and paid for by Ontarians. I’m sure ratepayers in New York, Michigan, Quebec and other jurisdictions we are give this energy to at a loss appreciate Dalton McGuinty’s fiscal incompetence;  but Ontarians can’t afford it any longer!”

The Feed-in-Tariff scheme brought in as part of Ontario’s Green Energy Act requires the government of Ontario to purchase all industrial wind generated electricity at a rate of $135 per MW, regardless of whether there is or is not a  demand for that power.

The price of industrial wind also isn’t subject to market rate fluctuations like forms of conventional, reliable power sources are.

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO)  is currently exporting 1250 megawatts of power, with the market price at just $10.35. This means that taxpayers are buying industrial wind energy at ten times the rate we’re selling it for, to other jurisdictions. Yesterday, at 8pm wind output suddenly dropped by almost 400MW, forcing the IESO to purchase power from our neighbours at $410.70 per MW by 10pm all because of unreliable wind energy.

Even with this surplus of energy generation in Ontario today, coal fired generators are still operating, demonstrating how unrelated this industrial wind energy scheme is to closing coal power plants in Ontario.

“Buy high, sell low is a really bad strategy. It’s time the Premier of Ontario got real and recognized that Ontario does not need these massive industrial wind developments and that Ontarians cannot afford to subsidize wind developers who supply wind power to our neighbours. This industrial wind strategy has failed to meet any of its stated objectives and will continue to cost Ontario dearly going forward. This might be a sweet deal for industrial wind developers and American ratepayers in neighbouring states, but it isn’t for Ontarians. Just who is Dalton McGuinty looking out for?” John Laforet said.

Wind Concerns Ontario is calling on the Government of Ontario to halt all industrial wind development in the province of Ontario, end the feed-in-tariff program that is costing ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize through higher energy bills, restore local democracy and planning control to municipalities and support the completion and findings of an independent epidemiological health study on the negative health effects suffered by people living too close to industrial wind turbines.

Eighty municipalities representing more than two million Ontarians have also joined Wind Concerns Ontario’s call on the government of Ontario to introduce a moratorium to industrial wind development by passing motions of moratorium of their own. Wind Concerns Ontario is an independent, grassroots, volunteer driven coalition of fifty seven community groups in thirty five counties throughout Ontario.

For more information:
John Laforet
President — Wind Concerns Ontario

Note that Premier Dalton McGuinty has said, he’d rather have a surplus of power than the “blackouts and brown-outs” during the Conservative government. Comment on that available at http://northgowerwindturbines.wordpress.com

The North Gower Wind Action Group Inc. is a community group representing more than 300 families in the North Gower-south Richmond area of Ottawa. We are a corporate member of Wind Concerns Ontario Inc


Read Full Post »

Response from WCO on Court Ruling.

Read Full Post »

In a stunning announcement, and obvious move to jettison unpopular government actions before election campaigning truly begins in Ontario, the McGuinty government announced it will not proceed with plans to construct industrial wind turbines in the Great Lakes. Citizens’ groups have been complaining for years about the plan, citing concerns about the effect on water quality, about the potential for bird kills, and health effects.

Now, the environmental effects of the onshore industrial wind turbines throughout Ontario, needs to be examined. Here is a report from CTV News.



Read Full Post »

Not so long ago, all you heard in the agricultural newspapers in Ontario was how wonderful the opportunities to host industrial wind turbines on your farm property were. The income was going to “save the family farm” we were told, and there would be no difference whatsoever to farming the property; some farm owners were quoted as saying they farm right up to the bottom of a turbine, with no problems.

Today, not so much: in fact the contracts property ownersare signing are confidential (it’s a condition of signing that the property owner cannot discuss terms), difficult to get out of, and contain many clauses that restrict activity. Farm owners have learned that the wind companies retain the right to come on their properties at any time, to remove trees if they need to, build roads, and restrict construction of any buildings on the farm property. (A sample contract is available at the Wind Concerns Ontario website at http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com ).

A round-up of articles and letters from the last week shows a diversity of opinions.

Shane Mulligan, Project Manager for the Local Initiative for Future Energy or LIFE, writes  in Ontario Farmer that every village could have an industrial wind turbine. “Yes, there seems to be evidence that wind farms have impacted the health of some folks, especially in the Ripley area. Wind Concerns Ontario and others have made much of these claims and are calling for more studies, larger setbacks, and suspension of building until turbines are ‘proven safe’. Safe compared to what? Every energy technology carries some impacts and uncertainties, and somebody is always ‘downwind’.”  Mr. Mulligan’s co-operative is at least in favour of community involvement in wind projects, a situation now made impossible by the Green Energy Act.

Economics professor Ross McKitrick writes in Ontario Farmer that Ontario’s rush to build wind turbines as salvation for jobs and the economy is reminiscent of the Brian Peckford Newfoundland government’s 1987 plan to boost the economy by subsidizing the building of massive hydroponic greenhouses. “Cucumbers did start appearing,” McKitrick writes. “The problem was each one cost $1.10 to grow and the wholesale market price was just over 50 cents. The greenhouse went bankrupt and ceased operations by 1990. The jobs vanished and the province was left with $14 million in debts to pay.”

Wind developer salespeople “have found in Dalton McGuinty their own Brian Peckford. They convinced him we can become a world leader, not in green produce but ‘green energy.’ Common sense has been jettisoned and the checks are flowing.

“We already have green energy,” McKitrick writes. “Most of our electricity comes from non-emitting hydro or nuclear generation, at a fraction of the cost of wind- and solar-generated power. By the government’s own data, Ontario air pollution has fallen dramatically since the 1970s through the use of scrubbers and automobile technology.”

“Green energy salesmen bamboozle gullible governments into signing checks in return for empty promises of jobs and growth. As the bills mount, prices rise and the economy sags, the inevitable unravelling begins. It will happen here too. The only question is how many jobs will disappear, and how much economic hardship we will put up with, before having the common sense to shut the scam down for once and for all.”

Last, Tom Van Dusen, who attended the North Gower meeting January 23rd, writes in Ontario Agri-News:

February 2011, Vol. 35, No. 2

AgriNews Interactive http://www.agrinewsinteractive.com

Turbines put wind up opponents
By Tom Van Dusen

The Prince Edward County resident who challenged in Ontario Superior Court the placement of industrial wind turbines hopes to hear a decision within several weeks.Ian Hanna outlined his case Jan. 23 to a coalition of some 125 turbine opponents gathered in North Gower. The next day, Hanna was in a Toronto courtroom making his case.

As a taxpayer, he said he resents incentives being handed out by the provincial “green fairy” to encourage construction of windmills without any scientific basis for their locations.

The meeting was convened by the North Gower Wind Action Group, Beckwith Responsible Wind Action Group and Spencerville’s South Branch Wind Opposition Group, all of which are resisting proposed wind farms in their areas.

To get them in the mood for the discussion, participants upon entering the hall were greeted with a loud background drone said to have been recorded from wind turbines in Maine by a landowner living about 1 km from the nearest one.

If he wins the case, Hanna and his backers anticipate that planned wind power projects will be put on hold across the province until “proper” medical studies are conducted which they expect will lead to minimum setbacks of 1.5-2 km between turbines and residences as opposed to the current 550 metres.

“This will kill many projects plus perhaps force rectification/compensation for built projects,” supporters say in a pamphlet seeking donations to the Hanna legal cause.

It’s the proximity of the industrial windmills and the constant drone they create which can make life miserable for rural residents, said Janet White of Wolfe Island in Lake Ontario south of Kingston which is now home to 86 turbines.

White said “slick” companies have created a rift on the island between residents who accepted windmills on their property and those – such as herself – who didn’t. Few jobs and little in the way of general economic benefit have resulted from the wind power project, the sometimes emotional mother of three children added, stating she feels she’s now living “under the thumb of big industry.”

Hanna’s big bone of contention is with the Green Energy Act which he says doesn’t contain authoritative guidelines for the appropriate siting of turbines because “there’s no good evidence as to when they’ll be safe or not.” His case dates back to early 2009 when environmental attorney Eric Gillespie was retained.

In addition to a multitude of ailments said to be caused by proximity to turbines such as sleeplessness, stress, hypertension, and tintinitus, Hanna and his followers cite livestock health, safety, environmental degradation, and decline in property values among drawbacks of windmills in the neighbourhood.

“People are suffering from living too close to turbines,” Hanna said who allowed that he himself isn’t close to a wind farm. “They’re sick, they can’t sleep and they can’t sell.”


More people are thinking and learning; that’s all we ask.


You can follow us on Twitter at northgowerwind at Twitter.com

Read Full Post »

A news release on the status of the Ian Hanna vs Ontario case, in which the plaintiff is asking for a judicial review of the Green Energy Act, on the basis that proper procedures were not followed prior to the passing of this Act.

Wind Turbine Legal Challenge Passes

Three Major Legal Hurdles

Toronto, January 24

– A panel of three Ontario Divisional Court judges today heard the submissions of counsel for the Attorney General representing the Ministry of Environment, counsel representing Ian Hanna, Eric Gillespie, and counsel for the Intervenor the Canadian Wind Energy Association in an application for judicial review of central provisions of the Green Energy Act regulations. The application states that the 550 meter setback, legislated by the McGuinty Liberal Government in September 2009, has not been scientifically justified as a sufficient distance to protect human health.

Initially it appeared the hearing might not be permitted to proceed as the court queried if an

upcoming Environmental Review Tribunal hearing in Chatham was where these issues should be addressed. After hearing substantial legal argument the panel of judges agreed to hear the case. Hurdle # 1.

In spite of the Attorney General’s attempts to have the court reject the evidence and qualifications of three medical doctors who filed affidavits relied on by the applicant, the court declined to overturn any of their evidence. Hurdle # 2.

The court also determined that notwithstanding the Attorney General and CanWEA’s submissions in opposition, the issues to be decided were complex and significant and the court would reserve making any decision to allow it to consider all of the information it had received. Hurdle # 3.

Ian Hanna the applicant has declared today’s results a victory for all those now suffering the consequences of poorly developed regulations and guidelines that have led to a litany of homes abandoned, adverse health effects and financial ruin for many Ontario residents.

The three judge panel will now review the evidence and submissions from today and have indicated they will likely release a written judgment in the near future.



Beth Harrington


647 588-8647

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »