By Pepper Parr
July 6, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The decision rendered by Justice Gibson on the Air Park case is 50 pages in length. Lawyers read documents like this – I am not sure it is something we can expect of our readers.
The following is a condensed version on what the issues were and what Justice Gibson ruled.
The Gazette will publish a more detailed explanation of the decision as well as the complete document.
The issue is far from over but there is at least a sense of direction.
Justice J Gibson delivered his decision on the just what the Air Park was required to do regarding the submitting of a Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration plan to the city and the removal of the 2,000,000 tonnes of landfill on the 77.77 hectares property.
He was blunt and direct and differed on numerous occasions with the Air Park interpretation of laws that were sited.
The fill does not have to be removed.
At issue was an ongoing dispute between Airpark and the City with respect to fill operations conducted by Airpark at the Airport between January, 2008 and August 2013.
The Airpark, the Judge contended, allowed and profited from the deposit of over 500,000 m3 (approximately 2,000,000 tonnes) of fill at the Airport.
The city was seeking two orders:
a) a mandatory order requiring the respondent Burlington Airpark Inc. to remove all fill deposited on the site between January 1, 2008 and August 2, 2013 except for soil underlying existing runways and hangars;
b) in the alternative, a mandatory order requiring Airport to file an application under By-law 64-2014 for the 2008-2013 work carried out before By-law 64-2014 had been passed and while the prior By-law 6- 2003 was in effect (the latter by-law having been since repealed in its entirety);
c) an order continuing the terns of an order made by Miller J. on August 2, 2013 respecting the deposit of fill at the Airport;
d) costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The original argument made by the Air Park was that hangers were going to be built on areas that were built up – nothing has been built yet.
Airpark, in contrast, sought an order dismissing the City’s application, Justice Gibson granted the city its application in part.
The Court Ordered that:
1. A mandatory order will issue requiring Airpark to file an application under By-Law 64-2014 for the 2008-2013 fill work carried out before By-Law 64-2014 had been passed, and while By-Law 6-2003 was in effect, by August 31, 2016; and,
2, The terms of the consent Order made by Miller J. on August 2, 2013 respecting the deposit of fill at the Airport will continue in effect.
What this amounts to is: The Air Park must file a site plan application but does not at this point have to remove any of the fill. The matter of contaminants in the fill and the impact they could have on the were left for another day.
