Ian Hanna goes to court

Judicial panel to consider halting wind energy development in the province

Ian Hanna addresses an anti-wind energy protest at Queen's Park in May, as Dr. Robert McMurty looks on.

Ian Hanna has had his day in court. The Big Island resident believes industrial wind factories are bad for his community, bad for taxpayers, bad energy policy and bad for the health of those forced to live in their midst.

So last year Hanna launched a legal challenge of the Green Energy Act—provincial legislation that mowed down environmental, municipal, and electricity grid regulations to pave the way for faster and more expedient conversion of rural and shoreline Ontario into wind and solar energy factories.

Along with Dr. Robert McMurtry, a physician and leading expert in health care in this country, and with the legal expertise of Eric Gillespie, Hanna embarked on a challenge of the GEA. They contend that when the McGuinty government established setbacks of 550 metres between 40-storey industrial wind turbines and a nearby homes, the setback distance was arbitrary—that it was established without a scientific or medical foundation.

Hanna’s day in court arrived on Monday.

Early on in the proceedings it appeared Hanna et al might not get out of the starting blocks. The province’s Attorney General argued that the judicial review panel of three judges shouldn’t even hear the case—that the case belonged before an Environment Review Tribunal established under the GEA— and that one such panel was set to convene shortly in Chatham. Fellow Big Island resident Henri Garand was in the courtroom for the hearing. He reports that Gillespie was able to step around this hurdle.

“Gillespie argued that only the court could examine legal matters which pertained to the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) setback regulations. The Hanna case questioned the Minister’s decision making and applied to all wind projects. It did not require the court to weigh scientific evidence but to consider the lawfulness of the regulation according to the MOE’s own Statement of Environmental Values.”

After a 20-minute recess, the judges agreed to hear the case. There followed a long day of carefully reasoned arguments on the admissibility of expert opinion, the status of the precautionary principle in Canadian law, and the extent of the MOE’s public consultation process.

The Attorney General representing the province attempted to have the court reject the affidavit evidence of three physicians including that of Dr. Robert McMurtry. The court refused to overturn the evidence.

“Ultimately it came down to the MOE’s handling of the medical evidence available at the time it made the setback regulation,” reported Garand. “Did the MOE really consider the evidence when the record showed that no one with medical expertise had ever reviewed it? How could a lawful regulation result from a faulty process?

“The hearing ended more positively than it began,” wrote Garand to the online edition of the Wellington Times. “The judges thanked Mr. Gillespie for ‘raising important issues,’and promised to provide a decision within a short time.”

If the panel rules in favour of Hanna, the development of wind energy factories in this province could grind to a halt. Before it can start again the province will likely have to ensure that the setbacks it determines are indeed safe and that they arrived at this distance based upon relevant medical and scientific evidence.

Many in this province are wondering this morning why this wasn’t done in the first place.