Licencing Process

In early 2006, Lafarge Canada asked the Ministry of the Environment for Certificates of Approval for air emissions and waste disposal so that it could launch an “alternative fuels” project to burn tires, plastic, and other waste in a cement kiln near Kingston, ON. Waterkeeper and dozens of others used the Environmental Bill of Rights process to inform the Ministry of possible environmental impacts, ask questions about the process, and make recommendations to ensure clean air and water and fair decision-making.  On December 21, 2006, the Ministry of the Environment issued the air emissions and waste site licences to Lafarge. The MOE proposes two-year ban on tire burning in Ontario the same day.

To win an opportunity to appeal the approvals, each party had to show that no reasonable person could have made the same decision as the Ministry of the Environment, and that the Ministry’s decision could result in significant harm to the environment. The parties had 15 days from December 21 to draft and submit their arguments. In its April 5, 2007 decision, the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) declared that Waterkeeper and others had met this test.

The Tribunal’s decision opens the door for Clean Air Bath, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Gord Downie, Loyalist Environmental Coalition, and The Tragically Hip. The appeal of Lafarge’s tire-burning plan takes the form of an independent public hearing. For the first time in the licensing process, the public becomes a full partner in decision-making that will influence the future health of Lake Ontario. The groups will be represented by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Ecojustice, and noted environmental lawyer Joseph Castrilli.

Pre-hearing submissions began in the fall of 2007 and the hearing was scheduled to begin in April 2008. However, through a Judicial Review process, Lafarge and the Ministry of the Environment attempted to halt the hearing through an appeal to Ontario’s Divisional Court.

Judicial Review

On June 18, 2008, the Divisional Court ruled in favour of Waterkeeper et al. The decision confirms the public’s right to participate fully in environmental decision-making. It requires the Ministry of the Environment to consider the cumulative environmental effects of issuing an approval before doing so and to apply the precautionary principle to such decisions. The Court’s judgement allowed the ERT hearing to proceed, and it was scheduled to begin in September 2008 in Odessa, ON.

Appeal

After Lafarge and the Ministry of the Environment failed to win their judicial review, Lafarge filed a motion for leave-to-appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The cement company hoped to have the Divisional Court’s decision overturned. On November 26, 2008, this application was denied with costs. The Court’s decision means Lafarge must face the Tribunal, appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, or abandon the project. Earlier statements to the Tribunal by Lafarge’s counsel indicate that the company would cancel the project rather than subject its proposal to the scrutiny of an independent tribunal.

On Dec 18 2008, Lafarge informed the MOE and ERT that it wished to withdraw its application for the alternative fuels project.

Lafarge Canada officially withdrew its application for the Alternative Fuels Project January 5, 2009.

For more information, check out our archive of news articles about Lafarge and alternative fuels.