A Big Island resident, Ian Hanna, launched judicial review today to block renewable energy approvals under the regulations recently adopted to implement Bill 150, the Green Energy Act. Mr. Hanna argues that it is contrary to the precautionary principle to allow wind energy development in Ontario without further study of its alleged health effects. He claims that the regulation is therefore contrary to the Ministry of the Environment’s Statement of Environmental Values, and should be struck down.
Mr. Hanna is supported by Dr. Robert McMurtry, former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, who claims that noise and low frequency sound are already causing adverse health effects on more than 100 people, and who wants all existing wind generation shut down.
The judicial review application is a very long shot, and it is extremely improbable that it will succeed. No Ontario regulation has ever been struck down on the ground that it conflicts with a statement of environmental values, which is a generally worded, subordinate instrument traditionally given less importance than a regulation. To do so, the court would have to decide it is better suited than the Legislature to balance the various harms caused by each form of electrical generation - a classic political decision. However, the application will redouble pressure on the Ministry of the Environment approvals branch as it struggles to meet the Minister’s promise of a six-month service guarantee to issue renewable energy approvals. Its main impact may be in making it more difficult for wind energy developers to obtain financing for projects in Ontario, especially with so much appetite for wind development in Europe and the United States.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Considering the mounting scientific evidence linking a number of adverse health effects to currently operating wind turbine projects in Ontario, the demand for a review of the regulations that govern such development is not unreasonable or unjustified. While Mr. Hanna's argument may not succeed, it is important for the Government of Ontario to understand that rural communities will continue to be vigilant about initiatives which have the potential to significantly restrict the use and enjoyment of their property. If government officials and wind energy proponents wish to secure the trust and support of the public, they must earn it by improving the level of transparency. The public, wind energy proponents and the government must all work together to produce a process which is transparent, honest and equitable. If the science endorsed by the wind energy industry is reliable, I encourage patience. Aggressive wind energy developers hasty to acquire government approvals without adequate public consultation has been well documented in communities across Ontario. This only heightens suspicion and scrutiny from the public, sentiments which, considering the circumstances are warranted. The Government of Ontario owes a duty to its citizens to ensure that wind energy regulations will protect their health, their property rights, and the environment. This may be achieved by independent studies which investigate these public concerns. The assertion that wind energy is the lesser of two evils is not an acceptable standard on which to approve further development.
It is easy to be a cynic, but it is the efforts of people like Mr. Hanna which act to promote political and scientific integrity.