An Ontario divisional court dismissed a bid by a citizen's group to block a road extension through an environmentally sensitive area near Kanata on Tuesday.
The South March Highlands-Carp River Conservation group took the City of Ottawa to court earlier this year in an attempt to halt the Terry Fox Drive extension, a four-kilometre, $4.7-million highway being constructed in northern Kanata. The organization wanted a judicial review of the city's decision to build the road through the South March Highlands and part of the Carp River floodplain, claiming the project did not comply with various legal requirements and, therefore, should be halted.
On Tuesday, however, the divisional court in Toronto rejected the group's main argument that the city should have filed an addendum that would have required further public review of the project. The court pointed out that the provincial environment ministry had already reviewed the city's decision to proceed with the extension and was "satisfied that the city had complied with all provincial environmental assessments."
When the South March Highlands group first initiated the court action in June, organizers argued that the original 2000 environmental assessment done for the road project and a subsequent 2005 "addendum" were out of date and had expired. The group also claimed there had been substantive changes to the project since the 2005 environmental update. In proceeding with the project, which links Kanata Lakes to Morgan's Grant, the city was breaching the Environmental Assessment Act by failing to follow proper procedures before beginning construction.
The court disagreed. "The ministry's decision does act as a significant indicator of the reasonableness of the city's decision that there was no need to file a further addendum requiring public review. By way of contrast, there is no evidence that would allow us to conclude that the city's decision was an unreasonable one. The nature of the changes (in the project) does not speak for itself. Reputable expert have expressed opinions on both sides of the question. Therefore, we cannot conclude that decision of the city to proceed with the project without filing an addendum was unreasonable."
City officials expressed relief at the decision, saying the city would have likely lost funding from senior levels of government if the court had ruled other than it did.
"The city would not have been able to benefit from the federal and provincial financing available as part of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund," said City Clerk Rick O'Connor.
The South March Highlands-Carp River Conservation group took the City of Ottawa to court earlier this year in an attempt to halt the Terry Fox Drive extension, a four-kilometre, $4.7-million highway being constructed in northern Kanata. The organization wanted a judicial review of the city's decision to build the road through the South March Highlands and part of the Carp River floodplain, claiming the project did not comply with various legal requirements and, therefore, should be halted.
On Tuesday, however, the divisional court in Toronto rejected the group's main argument that the city should have filed an addendum that would have required further public review of the project. The court pointed out that the provincial environment ministry had already reviewed the city's decision to proceed with the extension and was "satisfied that the city had complied with all provincial environmental assessments."
When the South March Highlands group first initiated the court action in June, organizers argued that the original 2000 environmental assessment done for the road project and a subsequent 2005 "addendum" were out of date and had expired. The group also claimed there had been substantive changes to the project since the 2005 environmental update. In proceeding with the project, which links Kanata Lakes to Morgan's Grant, the city was breaching the Environmental Assessment Act by failing to follow proper procedures before beginning construction.
The court disagreed. "The ministry's decision does act as a significant indicator of the reasonableness of the city's decision that there was no need to file a further addendum requiring public review. By way of contrast, there is no evidence that would allow us to conclude that the city's decision was an unreasonable one. The nature of the changes (in the project) does not speak for itself. Reputable expert have expressed opinions on both sides of the question. Therefore, we cannot conclude that decision of the city to proceed with the project without filing an addendum was unreasonable."
City officials expressed relief at the decision, saying the city would have likely lost funding from senior levels of government if the court had ruled other than it did.
"The city would not have been able to benefit from the federal and provincial financing available as part of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund," said City Clerk Rick O'Connor.
Posted in: court,ontario,road extension
0 comments:
Post a Comment