Ian Hanna Case Comes to Court

On a snowy Toronto morning, sixty people packed Osgoode Hall’s Courtroom 3 for the Ian Hanna hearing on the adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines.  It’s a case that may decide the future of wind energy development in the province as well as determine the fate of every rural resident expected to live near a wind project.

To everyone’s surprise, the hearing began with a question about the court’s jurisdiction. The panel of three judges asked why the Divisional Court rather than an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERTs) should consider turbine setbacks.

Attorney Eric Gillespie, representing Ian Hanna, 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.

But ultimately it came down to the MOE’s handling of the medical evidence available at the time it made the setback regulation. 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.  The judges thanked Mr. Gillespie for “raising important issues,” and they promised to “provide a decision within a short time.”

Reported by Henri Garand