All County, All the Time Since 2010 MAKE THIS YOUR PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY HOME...PAGE!  Saturday, November 28th, 2020

Misery in South Marysburgh and Athol c. 2014

Here are excerpts from 22 testimonies from Ontario residents about the adverse effects of wind turbines, most from southwestern Ontario but one (the first) from Wolfe Island.  These could be testimonies from South Marysburgh and eastern Athol residents starting in 2014.

BUT, we don’t have to let this happen.

http://wp.me/p1M8CZ-gJ

Gary Mooney
CCSAGE

Filed Under: Letters and Opinion

About the Author:

RSSComments (30)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Ray Hobson says:

    Below is an idea lifted from another Blog.
    +++++++++++++
    Petra says:
    05/04/2012 at 08:13

    “Whatever is decided, and if possible, I think we should do what the group did in the UK. Saw this in WindFarm Wars: Blown Away – the group got a large balloon, although I think a bunch of smaller balloons tied together would work too, and tethered it to a string which was the same length as the height of a wind turbine. This was to show the municipal council how tall the turbines are going to be.

    I think it would help demonstrate how tall they will be. How you will be able to see them from a great distance. Just an idea. ………”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    This seems like an excellent and doable idea. We could get it ready for the long weekend and “fly” it over or beside the Provincial Parks.

    Those of us who have been to Wolfe Island or other Wind Farms are familiar with the size of these IWTs. But I think many Urbanites and even some PEC residents do not realize the overall scope.

    Anyone interested to discuss details? Call Ray at 613-476-3808.

  2. Mark says:

    The debt is severe to edging on crisis no doubt. Do you think an election forced by the NDP would have been well received? I think not. I do not support the GEA or provisions to further harm the environment but I also do not see any credible alternative from the others. It’s just a real mess.

  3. Ray Hobson says:

    @Mark Why are the parties worrying about their party coffers and not prioritizing taxpayer debt?

    IMHO we can not give the NDP any credibility. As the infamous Brian Mulroney once said:
    ..”You had an option, sir”.

    It takes a stupendous leap of faith to believe that this budget will make us better off in the future. Let us characterize the Liberal minority budget as a banquet of new spending wrapped in a mysterious shroud of service cuts. Not to mention a sneaky add-on designed to gut the environmental review process.

    We rural voters have been punished for ousting the Liberals. The overall policy divide between urban & rural widens and that does not bode well for future PC support. If the turbines are installed, then wind policy votes will be less valuable. In response PEC can join other municipalities to create critical legal and voter mass to halt industrial wind turbines where not wanted.

    Let us make sure our political representatives, Municipal + Provincial + Federal all know how we feel.

  4. Mark says:

    The NDP didn’t have a lot of options other than forcing whatever they could get. All 3 parties are deeply in debt, the province is in a severe almost crisis financial situation, i.e. $10,000,000,000 a year just in interest. There is no appetite to spend more on an election. No shame in this. It is going to get a whole a lot worse before it improves. Everyone is spending beyond their means.

  5. Doris Lane says:

    The CBC news had Mike Crawley on this morning talking about the Budget vote in Ontario. He was just explaining how it went down–didn’t make much comment about it. It was rather annoying that the host did not say that Mike was the President of the Federal Liberals and a wind farm promoter.
    So he like Dalton does not care for the environment.
    Good to hear Clayton Ruby speak out but as was said too little too late. I think we should invite Clayton Ruby to come to PEC and have a look at South Marysburgh. He is very high profile lawyer.

  6. Richard Parks says:

    Shame on the Ontario NDP for trading their principles(?) in exchange for a tax on the rich. They had a chance to h shape the future of rural Ontario and missed it.
    Shame.

  7. Gary Mooney says:

    Chris, I agree with you 100%. Also, it’s nice that Clayton Ruby contributed this op-ed piece, but disappointing that he waited until the morning of the vote to do so. He’s got a reputation as an environmentalist, but appears also to be a major supporter of the Liberal government. So he makes his point in an effort to maintain his credibility, but too politely and too late for it to have any effect.

  8. Chris Keen says:

    I wonder if the CSG has been writing letters to attempt to stop the evisceration of the Endangered Species Act? What a contemptuous action on the part of this government. The emperor has no clothes – this government is anything but “green”. Worse Horwath has sold out the environment as well by not insisting this legislation be removed from the budget and subject to open discussion and debate. Shame on her.

    From the Toronto Star:

    Clayton Ruby

    “What is Premier Dalton McGuinty hiding in your budget bill? The legal ability to hurt Ontario’s most vulnerable species, that’s what.

    Ontario appears to be echoing the mood of the federal government, which also used its budget bill to introduce significant changes to environmental protection laws, a move that had less to do with budgets and more to do with undoing transparency, accountability and environmental responsibility.

    Likewise, the Ontario Liberals have buried several proposed changes in their new budget bill that strike at the heart of Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA), a piece of legislation this government proudly touted a mere five years ago.

    The province’s backsliding on the protection of Ontario’s endangered wildlife is surprising from what has been a pretty darn good government. And it ignores reality: once-common species, like the barn swallow and the monarch butterfly, are now increasingly rare.

    Here are the proposed changes that this government doesn’t want you to know about.

    First, McGuinty introduces an open-ended list of exemptions to the law — rarely a good sign in legislation promising protection for Ontario’s most vulnerable plants and animals. Sweeping new powers permit the government of the day to exempt private landowners from the requirement to protect endangered wildlife or habitat. Yet most species at risk are found in southern Ontario, and most of southern Ontario is securely in private hands. In other words, protection will be exempt in the region where you find the highest concentration of endangered wildlife.

    Second, right now if development harms a threatened or endangered species or its habitat, that work can only proceed if the owner creates alternatives so that the species is better off than before. This way, the wheels of economic growth can keep turning, but the owner has to make meaningful attempts to conserve declining species. The budget gives industry free reign to operate without regard to this protection. Habitat, we can do without you!

    Third, the 2013 deadline to complete plans to protect and re-establish plants and animals whose populations have plummeted so dramatically they will disappear from the province — and in some cases the country — has been taken out. With no legal teeth, who could expect that such plans will ever move forward?

    Ontario’s ESA was passed in 2007 with the support of almost all MPPs. It has gained international acclaim and helped build McGuinty’s reputation as a man who cares for our heritage. The act sets clear requirements for basing decisions on the best scientific information available, yet it provides a great deal of flexibility in how these protections are implemented.

    Take the widening of Highway 400 near Parry Sound.

    On the face of it, a wider highway would not be good news for the endangered animals in the area. But thanks to some fairly modest measures, like special fencing and crossing culverts, the new highway is significantly less lethal than the old highway. It’s also safer for drivers, who don’t need to swerve to avoid turtles or other creatures. Clearly, proper environmental planning does not bring development to a grinding halt.

    Yet this gutting of the ESA is unrelated to any major budget commitment. They are just anti-environment measures tucked into a hefty finance measure solely to escape the scrutiny that would otherwise be guaranteed by the Environmental Bill of Rights, which requires public input into changes in Ontario’s environmental laws.

    The Liberals used to tell Ontarians that they believed in collaborative planning designed to protect species and habitats and avoid problems down the road. If they’ve changed their minds, let them publicly wear it. We need that debate out in the open, not buried in the fine print of a spending bill.”

    Clayton Ruby is one of Canada’s leading lawyers, an outspoken proponent of freedom of the press, and a prominent member of the environmental community.

  9. Doris Lane says:

    Marie you are dead right in everything you say. Added to this the feds are doing away with some environmental assessments and cancelling jobs of people who would work on the assessments,all so they can keep their promise to China to be able to ship them oil.
    It would seem that Dalton and Harper are cut from the same cloth. It is all about BIg oil and big business. They are both a danger to Canada

  10. Marie says:

    @Ken…the NDP and you have about 24 hours…here’s a post that I put on my facebook page this morning, to sort of summarize where were at, as I see it anyways…

    Hey Phil (et all)

    Regardless of the negative health effects, the Liberal green energy act has removed the power of municipalities to have any say in the placement of industrial wind turbines. Further more, the budget, which gets voted on this Tuesday, has I think 69 amendments to the endangered species act in Ontario. These amendments have been hidden in the budget and really should have been discussed in a transparent way. For my less than political friends, it’s like this. Dalton is ruling Ontario as head of a minority government. If he had a majority, then the budget would just pass and damn the environment. However, he doesn’t and the Conservatives plan to vote unanimously against the budget. The NDP then, has to make a choice, whether to side with the Liberals or vote against the budget. For the record, the political make-up of Ontario is 53 Liberal Seats, 37 Conservative seats and 17 NDP seats. So that’s 107 seats. The Liberals in the last election were just one seat away from a majority. Also noteworthy, is that in the last election, the Liberals lost 17 seats and the Conservatives gained 12 seats. This was primarily due to rural Ontario not liking how the Liberals were putting corporate interests in the Green Energy Act ahead of the health and well being of rural Ontario. As I have said before, for me it’s about not wanting an industrial turbine in our neighbor’s backyard 750 metres from our house (and even closer to our property line.) For residents of Durham it might mean not wanting to have an incinerator forced into their community. The Green Energy Act has such a nice name, but really, it’s putting corporate interests ahead of the health of Ontario residents. Opponents to the act, rural residents and the Conservative members have tried to have discussions with the Liberals, but these efforts have fallen on deaf ears. There have been no independent studies of the health effects of wind turbines in Ontario. But rather, there is a lot of “spin” about how great they are. They aren’t, especially when all of Ontarians hydro rates are set to skyrocket due to the lucrative contracts that were offered to the developers under the FIT program. Ontario is exporting energy at a LOSS and will be doing so for some time, as the green energy act states that we must use green energy first. This unto itself could bankrupt Ontario within a generation. People have said that an election will cost Ontario citizen’s 100 million dollars. Rest assured we will pay much more than that if the Liberals stay in power. So why would the NDP not want to bring down the Liberals and help save the 15% of wetlands that are left undeveloped in Ontario? Answer, simple economics, elections are expensive for political parties and the NDP don’t have the money to afford much of an election, and by forcing one, they stand to loose political support for people who just don’t understand how much is at stake. It’s sad, but for whatever reason, not supporting a budget is a mechanism that exists in Ontario that can bring down the government. Please note, I do support green energy, but would rather see more incentives for homeowners to allow for energy efficiency in their homes and lifestyles and 2km as a reasonable setback for turbines from peoples homes. This is becoming an international standard, and I think the current 550 metre setback in rural Ontario is going to make thousands of homes unsafe to live in and worthless in real estate markets.

  11. ken mist says:

    Watching from the sidelines one can see turbines cause grief to some. However I cant categorize the real concerns.
    1) property value & real estate sales
    2) paying the costs as ratepayers
    3) the changing look to our fields
    4) environmental

    I don’t see any cries of despair over solar panels growing like weed’s and providing the very same aspects listed above. Where do I look for support to stop this nonsense?

  12. Dayton Johnson says:

    Gary: my motive was to draw attention and get a response to what I considered to be a soft approach to this festering problem.We all know of the great work done by CCSAGE…they started it all! and we thank them for that. However,zero hour is here and there wasn’t much mention of a last line of defense.It’s frustrating to watch the bickering on here. I probably should have deleted this site long ago but when the focus is in your own neighbourhood that was impossible.
    I make no apologies… I asked you to explain your quote that “we don’t have to let this happen” and I’m still not clear what you meant.
    I will tell you that my posts have had a positive response and has motivated more individuals in my community.We are in need of some leadership and guidance but at least the spark is there.
    I’m angry about losses in property values here,cancelled property sales and the overall costs to Ontarians in electricity.Personally we pick the best times to run our appliances so that Ontario can pay USA to take our over production.More frustration!
    In regards to your last paragraph to me I don’t pretend to be a leader but I ask for your members support in a peaceful demonstration/blockade

  13. Chris Keen says:

    WPD is going to be busy!!

    From the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin

    Landowners line up in action against wind turbines
    By Morgan Ian Adams
    Updated 17 hours ago

    CLEARVIEW TWP. — The fight against two wind turbine projects is not about to blow over.

    Twenty more residents have joined two collective actions against WPD Canada and the landowners who would host the turbines, bringing the value of the two claims to more than $17 million.

    John and Sylvia Wiggins launched a suit earlier this year against WPD and Beattie Bros. Ltd., claiming the threat of wind turbines being located near their property on the 6th Conc. had devalued their property and made it difficult to sell.

    The Wiggins’ claim sought an injunction and $2 million in damages related to the proposed Fairview Wind Farm.

    Kevin Elwood, a farmer and pilot who operates an aerodrome at his farm on County Road 91 west of Stayner, has also filed suit against WPD and the Beatties, citing that the proposed locations of the turbines would make use of his airstrip unsafe.

    Elwood says one of the proposed turbine locations is in the direct path of his airstrip.

    The allegations have not been proven in court.

    The board of the Collingwood Regional Airport is also challenging WPD plans — albeit not yet through legal channels — noting the siting of turbines could jeopardize the airport’s approach areas.

    WPD has proposed to locate eight wind turbines in an area north and south of County Road 91.

    On Friday, Wiggins announced in a news release that 15 residents are now proposed plaintiffs in his action; five other residents have launched a second action against another Beattie family, Ed Beattie & Son Ltd., who the release claims intend to host two turbines on their property south of County Road 91.

    As proposed plaintiffs, they need to await the consent of the defendants named to be part of the suit; failing that, Wiggins’ solicitor Eric Gillespie said a motion would be filed with the courts and a judge would make the determination.

    “All of these landowners near the proposed wind turbine development are clearly upset that 50-storey turbines are being foisted on them arbitrarily,” Wiggins stated in the release. “These groups are establishing a model that other groups across Ontario will now be able to follow… a snowball effect that wind companies, landowners and the Ontario government should take note of.”

    Wiggins is out of the country and could not be reached for comment. Gillespie said the other plaintiffs are in much the same boat as the Wiggins, as they had intended to sell property, had people interested in purchasing, but that the interest dropped off as soon as the WPD project was proposed.

    Gillespie said in the case of the Wiggins’ property, three of the proposed turbines would be located less than 1,000 metres; provincial policy for wind turbines specifies a minimum separation of 550 metres.

    Gillespie also didn’t believe a recent ruling by Ontario’s Assessment Review Board that stated a Wolfe Island couple’s property had not been devalued by the presence of wind turbines would have any affect on his client’s claim.

    Earlier this month, a two-person panel ruled that proximity to wind turbines would not be a factor in deciding how much property tax Edward and Gail Kenney should pay.

    The couple, who have lived on the island for 48 years, appealed their property tax assessment on the grounds that 86 wind turbines erected around their home brought unwanted noise and posed a health concern. The couple estimated their property had lost 40-to-50% of its value.

    “We don’t believe that case is comparable to the claim being brought here,” said Gillespie, adding he is familiar with the case, and that the Kenneys were not represented by legal counsel, nor did they present expert witnesses.

  14. Pete Johnson says:

    Wind Turbines are NOT dividing our community. This community is united in opposition. Those few voices who support wind on the County can be ignored, they are misguided and insignificant. I support everyone who has devoted their energy to speaking out and fighting wind power here regardless of their motives or tactics. Fight on brothers and sisters! I will meet you on the barricades!

  15. Gary Mooney says:

    Dayton, on behalf of my colleagues at CCSAGE, I could take offence at your latest comment, but I choose to assume that you’re simply not aware of the extent of the work being done by CCSAGE and its member groups.

    CCSAGE and its member groups have been EXTREMELY active for more than 3 years in finding wasy to protect the County from the threats posed by wind turbines. In addition to doing huge amounts of research, we are pursuing both political and legal remedies, especially the latter. We have raised (and spent) about $300,000 on legal challenges to date. Some people have contributed more than $10,000 to the cause. We have several people who each spend 20 to 30 (unpaid) hours per week year-round on this issue. Dr. Bob McMurtry testified that he has devoted 4000 hours to researching the impact of wind turbines on health. We have considered literally scores of available legal approaches, concentrating on the few that can be resolved before turbines are built. Members of our group have regular contacts with people worldwide who are researching the effects of wind turbines or fighting them off in their communities.

    We have held numerous public meetings since 2009 to inform and motivate County residents. We co-sponsored an international symposium on the effects of wind turbines on health, attended by people from many countries. We have organized petitions and encouraged the submission of comments on projects (Skypower, Gilead, WPD) to proponents and provincial authorities. We are regularly in touch with the Mayor and some County Councillors, senior staff and our local MPP and have made several deputations to Council. We send information emails regularly to as many as 1000 addresses. We have published more than 60 articles on our blog, established last August. We distribute copies of these articles via Facebook and Twitter. We have contributed many articles and letters to local media and have solicited the attention of regional media. We have marched in protests both in Toronto and here in the County.

    Members of CCSAGE have promoted alternatives to large-scale wind development, first the Green Alternative Plan which would focus on small-scale renewable energy projects and retrofits and more recently the extension of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park to include public lands in the South Shore IBA and the waters offshore.

    We are also cooperating with more than 50 other groups in Ontario through Wind Concerns Ontario to challenge the McGuinty government. It was through the efforts of these groups individually and collectively that the McGuinty government lost multiple seats in rural Ontario.

    It is a tribute to the members of CCSAGE that we never lose heart and never consider giving up.

    Dayton, if you think that there is action that can be taken but is not being addressed by CCSAGE, why don’t you organize something?

  16. Ray Hobson says:

    @Jack Very intriguing idea and precedents. I wonder if we have any legally trained minds that might comment.
    I am an Engineer but to me it seems worthwhile pursuing.
    Do we have a way of distributing this post to other Ontario Municipalities who wish to fight against wind turbine installation?

  17. Jack says:

    I just thought I would verify that everyone understands. My posting is a legal opinion that I had asked for, not my own opinion

  18. David Norman says:

    Dayton, I agree with your impetus… it is time to come out and be known… PEC folks will not fully realize the implications/consequences of their support, for or against, the presence of Industrial Wind Turbines until they are able to identify and understand every individual involved in this process. One thing that the poll on CountyLive made clear, if not the County Sustainability Group’s contention that it was “meaningless and misleading”, were indicative results of an anti Industrial Wind Turbine majority. There needs to be identity associated with opposing sides. If not, there will be festering wounds and suspicions that will permeate and detract from County social life for some time to come. Let us come face to face and confront/discuss this issue. Let us see the faces and know the names of those who will be directly affected… hear their voices and the reasons for choices. There seems to be an abundance of spokespersons… but what is their agenda and who exactly do they represent? If there is an understanding to be had, let us discover it! Who has a Conservative agenda, a Liberal agenda and a NDP agenda? Why does the current President of our local OFA not speak out on this issue? Is it a farm folk verses newly arrived city folk division? So many questions/suspicions, so few answers. I for one can respect the direct conversation of an opponent on an issue, regardless of my personal perceptions of motives. Fighting with a distant government accomplishes nothing if we do not have a clear perception of where we stand as a community and that others legitimate concerns can be accommodated in our personal perspectives. We do not need civil disobedience, we need a community that is willing to be transparent and proactive. Let us get out to the public square and demonstrate an integrity of conviction, whatever that may be. No one of us can plan for a future with so many unknowns.

  19. Jack says:

    @ all partcipants in this forum. Regarding the individual land owners who have agreed to allow turbines on their property,s. Would you have a look at this attachment , especially from the bottom of page two on. Could this be a legal action we could take against them ? categorizing the turbines as a nuisance. WPD have deep pockets,to defend this type of issue. I suggest that some of the land owners may not have the means to do so. It will also send a message to them. No land , no turbines.
    1. The Supreme Court of Canada in Schenck v. Ontario 1987 CanLII 21 (SCC), 1987 CanLII 21 S.C.C., 1987 CanLII 21 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 289 set out the specific elements of the modern tort of nuisance. These are:
    a. Substantial interference with or damage to the plaintiff’s lands;
    b. A causal link between the interference and the plaintiff’s lands and the use of the defendant’s lands; and
    c. A finding that the use of the defendant’s land is unreasonable having regard to locality in question, the utility of the defendant’s conduct and the extent of the interference with the plaintiff’s interest.
    2. In Murray v. Langley Township 2010 B.C.J. No. 128 (B.C.S.C.) the court reviewed the law of nuisance and stated at para. 36:
    36. Causation is a pre-requisite to a finding of nuisance. As set out in Linden and Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law (8th ed., 2006), at p. 569:
    The onus of proof that the defendant caused an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s land rests on the plaintiff, but once that is shown, the onus is on the defendant to establish that the use of the land is reasonable.
    3. Professor Klar’s text on tort law, Klar, Tort Law, 4th ed., (Thompson Carswell, 2008), also contains a discussion of private nuisance. The responsibility of defendant may be more nuanced depending on the extent of the damage caused. As the author states at p. 730:
    Whereas the absence of negligent conduct on the defendant’s part is not a factor when substantial damage or injury has been caused, it is a legitimate consideration in cases involving less serious interferences with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his land. As well, as it has been previously discussed, reasonable foreseeability of the type of injury caused by the activity is a requirement of a successful nuisance claim.
    As the author continues at p. 731:
    The persons who are liable for the nuisance are those who are conducting the offensive activities in question or those who are responsible for them.
    4. In Newmarket (Town) v. Halton Recycling Ltd., 2006 CanLII 33316 (ON SC), the court considered section 433 of the Municipal Act (now section 447.1 (1)), which reads in part as follows:
    (1) Upon application of a municipality, the Superior Court of Justice may make an order requiring that all or part of a premises within the municipality be closed to any use for a period not exceeding two years if, on the balance of probabilities, the court is satisfied that,
    (a) activities or circumstances on or in the premises constitute a public nuisance or cause or contribute to activities or circumstances constituting a public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises;
    (b) the public nuisance has a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity of the premises including, but not limited to, impacts such as,
    (i) trespass to property,
    (ii) interference with the use of highways and other public places,
    (iii) an increase in garbage, noise or traffic or the creation of unusual traffic patterns,
    (iv) activities that have a significant impact on property values,
    (v) an increase in harassment or intimidation, or
    (vi) the presence of graffiti; and
    (c) the owner or occupants of the premises or part of the premises knew or ought to have known that the activities or circumstances constituting the public nuisance were taking place or existed and did not take adequate steps to eliminate the public nuisance.
    (2) A municipality shall not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to a premises without the consent of the chief of police of the municipal police force or the detachment commander of the Ontario Provincial Police detachment that is responsible for policing the area which includes the premises and the consent shall not be refused unless, in the opinion of the chief of police or detachment commander, the application may have an impact on the operations of the police.
    (3) After obtaining a consent under subsection (2) but before making an application under subsection (1), the municipality shall give 15 days notice of its intention to make an application under subsection (1) to the Attorney General.
    (4) The following conditions apply with respect to a notice given to the Attorney General under subsection (3):
    1. If the Attorney General does not provide any comment to the municipality with respect to the application within the 15-day period, the municipality may proceed with the application.
    2. If the Attorney General provides comments to the municipality supporting the application within the 15-day period, the municipality may immediately proceed with the application.
    3. If the Attorney General provides comments to the municipality opposing the application within the 15-day period, the municipality may not proceed with the application.
    5. Subsection (4) 3 was not an issue in the Newmarket case and the court held that Section 433 (now 447.1) is a specific statutory provision authorizing the Superior Court to make an order to close premises within the municipality for a period not exceeding two years. The Court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that: (1) the activities on the premises constitute a public nuisance or cause activities constituting a public nuisance in the vicinity of the premises; (2) the public nuisance has a detrimental impact on the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity of the premises, including, but limited to, impacts such as… noise or… activities that have a significant impact on property values…; (3) the owner or occupants of the premises knew or ought to have known that the activities constituting the public nuisance were taking place and did not take adequate steps to eliminate the public nuisance.
    6. The court in the Newmarket case pointed out that the remedies provided in section 447.1 of the Municipal Act were required in order to enable a municipality to enforce by-laws it had made pursuant to sections 128 and 129 of the Municipal Act, which now read as follows:
    128. (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances
    (2) The opinion of council under this section, if arrived at in good faith, is not subject to review by any court.
    129. Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, a local municipality may,
    (a) prohibit and regulate with respect to noise, vibration, odour, dust and outdoor illumination, including indoor lighting that can be seen outdoors; and
    (b) prohibit the matters described in clause (a) unless a permit is obtained from the municipality for those matters and may impose conditions for obtaining, continuing to hold and renewing the permit, including requiring the submission of plans.
    7. In the Newmarket case, the operators of the offending waste treatment site argued that the powers of the municipality to prohibit public nuisance had been ousted by the provincial legislation which authorized the operation of waste treatment facilities. The court rejected this argument on the following grounds:
    The Supreme Court considered the problem of conflicting jurisdictions in Quebec in 114957 Canada v. Hudson (Ville) 2001 SCC 40 (CanLII), (2001) 2 S.C.R. 241 [Spraytech] at para. 38-39:
    The court summarized the applicable standard as follows: “A true and outright conflict can only be said to arise when one enactment compels what the other forbids.” … “Compliance with the provincial Act does not necessitate defiance of the municipal By-law; dual compliance is certainly possible.”; … “A finding that a municipal by-law is inconsistent with a provincial statute (or a provincial statute with a federal statute) requires, first, that they both deal with similar subject matters, and second, that obeying one necessarily means disobeying the other.
    As a general principle, the mere existence of provincial (or federal) legislation in a given field does not oust municipal prerogatives to regulate the subject matter…
    8. Section 5 of the Green Energy Act attempts to circumvent sections 128 and 129 of the Municipal Act by permitting designated energy projects to proceed notwithstanding bylaw contravention, as follows:
    5. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate renewable energy projects, renewable energy sources or renewable energy testing projects for the following purposes:
    1. To assist in the removal of barriers to and to promote opportunities for the use of renewable energy sources.
    2. To promote access to transmission systems and distribution systems for proponents of renewable energy projects.
    (2) A person is permitted to engage in activities with respect to a designated renewable energy project, a designated renewable energy source or a designated renewable energy testing project in such circumstances as may be prescribed, despite any restriction imposed at law that would otherwise prevent or restrict the activity, including a restriction established by a municipal by-law, a condominium by-law, an encumbrance on real property or an agreement.
    (3) A restriction imposed at law that would otherwise prevent or restrict an activity with respect to a designated renewable energy project, a designated renewable energy source or a designated renewable energy testing project is inoperative to the extent that it would otherwise prevent or restrict the activity.
    (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply,
    (a) with respect to a restriction imposed by an Act or regulation; or
    (b) with respect to prescribed by-laws, instruments or other restrictions or prescribed classes of by-laws, instruments or other restrictions.
    9. It would appear that although section 5 of the Green Energy Act is effective to oust operation of any restricting municipal bylaw made under sections 128 and 129 of the Municipal Act, it does not prevent a municipality from seeking a court order preventing a public nuisance under section 447.1. Such an application is not necessarily a restriction, as held by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Canada v Hudson case, and if it is a restriction it is one imposed by the Municipal Act and not rendered inoperative by the Green Energy Act.

  20. Dayton Johnson says:

    @ Gary,, quoting you,”But, we don’t have to let this happen” What exactly does that mean? Fartin in the wind and sitting on our hands now gives the wrong impression. May as well line up and blow kisses at the trucks as they roll in! I’m not a CCSAGE member and if I was I’d be cancelling my membership now. You talk the talk but get a failing grade when it’s crunch time.I hope that someone will step up and organize a peaceful civil disobedience that will inform us of legal ways and means to draw attention. Nobody wants another Vancouver or anything close to that.
    I have lived in South Marysburgh all my 65 years and am situated somewhat out of the immediate “danger”area according to your map but I’m concerned for neighbors who could suffer all the effects mentioned in your exerpts.
    My gripe is with the Liberals and their bullheaded approach…all for a policy that could be easily cheaper,safer and not as devisive as the wind turbine.

  21. Gary Mooney says:

    Dayton, regarding your question about a plan for civil disobedience, CCSAGE decided early on to take the high road and work within the system. Based on results to date, we can take some credit for the fact that: a strong majority of County residents are now opposed to wind turbines in the County, a majority of our current Council is negative towards wind turbines here and our new MPP is strongly opposed and working on our behalf.

    Regarding civil disobedience, I expect that such will occur spontaneously if and when the trucks start rolling through the County, or maybe earlier if Gilead is approved (a decision should be announced by the end of May). And it’s possible that an action group will be formed, but it shouldn’t be a CCSAGE initiative, because doing so would result in the loss of much of the goodwill and credibility that we have built up over three years.

  22. Doris Lane says:

    Dayton maybe there will come a time to block the county side of the Deseronto bridge–they think they might come that way but something needs to happen before we reach that stage–Did not know Dalton was in Belleville–would have liked to talk with him–like you this is all so frustrating
    Now the feds want to cut down on enviromental assessments and with bill55 in the ontario budget wind companies can go into parks and do what they want–what a mess==but remember big business–big oil rules the world==how do we fight them

  23. chris says:

    seems like more places for sale in the area this spring – cty rd 13 s.bay to the point..
    maybe they are too tired to stand up.
    more than $ at stake gentlemen

  24. Dayton Johnson says:

    Jack,,don’t know if you have noticed or not but I seldom get any acknowledgment from Mr. Mooney or others when it comes down to push and shove on this issue.Sure there is a time for discussion and questionaires and townhall meets to inform,,then there’s those emailed updates from CCSAGE and posturing with our politicians…. la-de-da–but c’mon!That’s been done to death! What year is this? I’m asking Mr. Mooney if there is a plan in place for civil disobedience or should the S Marysburgh property owners simply fold our tents. Mooney,,,that’s Irish isn’t it?

  25. Jack says:

    @Dayton, You are absolutely correct. Placards , banners, public meetings , letters to the editor will not cut it. We have to say no, and mean it. We need elderly retired people, business professionals , children and their familys. to stand in front of these monstrosity,s and say no you are not coming in. The goverment and the developers will only start talking to us then. Otherwise, nothing will change. People will throw their hands up and say , well we tried. Just like the civil rights events of the south, without direct confrontation there will be no valid changes to what they are intending to do. I, for one intend to step in front of the bus ,if that is what it takes, shut down the bridges, refuse them access, only then will something come of this sad situation. Step behind me or in front of me, but if they start , I personally will be there. The 29 or 30 owners who have leased their land also need to be told. What right do they have to screw with my life and my property value. Good neighbours they are not. If they were they would respect how the majority people around them feel. Whether the people of the county have the balls to do what has to be done is the big question.

  26. Dayton Johnson says:

    OK,,so when does the talking end and WE TAKE SOME ACTION?!!!
    Not that many years ago a psyco was also in charge and people were railroaded into a situation that ended their life…..talking went on around them and nothing was done. Being vocal here and argueing amongst ourselves has no effect obviously. Is there a plan in place before it’s really too late? For once I’d like to know!

  27. Chris Keen says:

    The decline in property values is not going to be confined exclusively to Athol and South Marysburgh – although they are certainly ground zero. If built, these projects will likely have some impact on property values over a wider area. Sadly, residents will be mired in lawsuits against the property owners and turbine companies for various reasons, for years.

  28. Mark says:

    The word is out there now. The real estate market is declining and now the first thing a buyer asks is where are the turbines going up. South Marysburgh landownwers are in big trouble. For a lot of these people this is their life savings. It’s just wrong.

  29. Doris Lane says:

    Dalton is trying to ruin everyones life and with Bill 55 it will mean the end of the county as we know it
    Come on people wake up and stop all this nonsense before it is too late. Todd Smith is voting against the budget now let us get the NDP to do the same

  30. Renee says:

    Our provincial government has failed with this green energy porfolio, these families are paying for it with their health now and we will be paying for it once Gilead and WPD get their projects going.

    Shame on them.

OPP reports
lottery winners
FIRE
SCHOOL
Elizabeth Crombie Christine Henden
Tony Scott Sharon Armitage

HOME     LOCAL     MARKETPLACE     COMMUNITY     CONTACT US
© Copyright Prince Edward County News countylive.ca 2020 • All rights reserved.