Is there real enforcement of conservation authority regulations? Often, no, but that may be starting to change.
In Lakehead Region Conservation Authority v. DeMichele, the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a permanent injunction preventing a developer from further dredging and filling in a wetland, without a permit. DeMichele had a history of developing land without a permit, and argued that the Authority cannot enforce its regulations against him because it failed to do so in the past.
The Court agreed that further dredging or placing of fill in the wetland might damage the wetland, and that it was in the public interest to ensure that the unauthorized work on the land ceases. The LRCA cannot, however, force DeMichele to remediate work he conducted in the past, when the LRCA knew or ought to have known that he was doing it; in fact, it appears to have sanctioned some of the work. The LRCA was also awarded legal costs totalling $22,000, although its actual costs were considerably higher.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
The whole regulation should be appealed since the mapping was not available at the time of public review. We have pockets of water in dug ponds less than 0.03 ha that are regulated and require a permit.
Conservation Authorities are asked to give 'expert' opinion on variious aspects of development and planning issues. While some work with applicants and demonstrate a spirit of cooperation, many send comments that are based on facts or information derived from nebulous studies, some dating back decades. They also come off as authoritarian and ultimately punitive in their findings. This leads to the stifling of much potential progress and frustrates forward thinking officials who try to promote their community. They use their 'power' in a most negative fashion whereby they have the ammunition to afford them the right to say NO to almost any progress or development, based on regulation 169/06. That
continued….
reg. places any built up area/town that happens to be in any sort of a valley, in a positon where they cannot erect anything
because in a ' hundred year rain' the new building/shed/ whatever would/ could flood. There is absolutely no data that would lend to a definition of a '100 year rainfall'. Therefore their decisions are based loosely on 'their' interpetation of how many milimetres of rain constitutes a 5 year/ 10 year/ 50 year/ 100 year rainfall. i.e Walkerton had seven inches of rain on May 12th of 2000 as confirmed by many residents who used theri own rain gauges. However, the amount of rain that fell that night will be lost 'officially', as weather canada uses the Mt. Forest weather station when predicting or describing weather for Walkerton. Therefore approximately 2 and 3/4 inches of rain will be the official amount that fell in the annals of weather history. based on this incorrect data a 3 inch rainfall may be considered a significant event in Walkerton and cause 100 year flooding etc. in future considerations of the Conservation Authority. Comments??????