This notice is given by the applicant in accordance with section 47 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. The notice was prepared by the applicant and represents its position. It does not represent or reflect the views of the Government of Ontario, nor does the Government of Ontario make any representations about the accuracy of the content of this notice.

The applicants are seeking leave to appeal the Director’s decision to issue Permit to Take Water No. P-300-9277228428 to St. Rita at Marylake Long Term Care Home.

Grounds for leave to appeal

The applicants submit the following grounds for seeking Leave to Appeal:

1. The issued Permit contradicts its associated ERO. Where the permit states that the purpose is “construction” and the activity is “dewatering”, the ERO indicated that the purpose was to take water and the activity was “accommodation and food services purpose.”
2. The Permit confuses construction activity and post-construction activity. Section 3.2, Table A, indicates that the Purpose Category is “Construction” while section 3.3 notes that water taking for construction has already been allocated under Registration No. R-009-6263756324 filed August 28, 2024. Section 3.3 of this permit only authorizes the taking of water upon completion of construction activities, after which R-009-6263756324 has been canceled. It is not clear how this confusion between construction and post-construction activity has or will affect the permitted maximums.
3. If the PTTW is for post-construction activities, then the Purpose & Activity described appear to conflict along with the information provided in the ERO. Construction should be complete and there would be no requirement for dewatering and the activity approved by the Permit is drainage, specifically foundation drainage. The Registration (not the Permit) approves water taking (dewatering) related to construction. The purpose of the Permit is further confounded by reference in the ERO as: "purpose of taking: accommodation and food services purpose. There is also ambiguity surrounding treatment and discharge requirements with the ERO posting stating treatment via a stormwater pond prior to discharge the natural environment vs. the Permit stating discharge to a” ‘sewer system” after approval is obtained from the owner of the system. The Appellants are unaware of any such sewer system.
4. The Appellants have issues with the factual basis for issuing this Permit. If it is to be believed that discharge will be directed to a stormwater management pond, the only stormwater pond in the vicinity is off-site and used by the adjacent school. The Appellants are concerned that this stormwater management pond does not have any additional capacity. The Appellants are not aware of any additional permit for a new stormwater pond. If discharge is to be released to the natural environment, the entire land on which the subject property is contained slopes down to Mary Lake – a sensitive kettle lake on the Oak Ridges Moraine that contains 10 fish species (see attached affidavit from aquatic biologist Mark Heaton who carried out a fish survey for OMNRF). This would be in contravention of relevant EPA Section 14 Regulations, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Regulations and Fisheries Act prohibitions against discharging stormwater and other contaminants into kettle lakes or doing anything that might disturb, or harm designated Provincially Significant Wetlands or Kettle Lakes. Additionally, no method was provided by the proponent to remove salt from stormwater, or the Phenols found in the groundwater at one borehole onsite, which were found at approximately 10 times the ECCC allowable limit. It is illegal under the Federal Fisheries Act to discharge any amount of contaminated water to any body of water that contains fish. Additionally, it is the Appellant’s understanding there is no treatment facility at the school stormwater pond (see ORMCP section 45 (7)).
5. Architectural drawings show that the west side of the 160 bed Long Term Care Home requires a retaining wall to hold up the west side of the building since the basement floor is exposed above ground level. That retaining wall will be anchored into a large deep concrete base that at least during construction will have to require the groundwater to be pumped out. The Appellants do not believe that the Permit includes the amount of groundwater pumping required for the installation of the concrete base for the retaining wall.
6. The Appellants are concerned that the cumulative impacts of water removal on site have the potential to alter water levels in the lake and wetlands, impacting aquatic life, wetland vegetation, and broader hydrological systems. The Appellants submit that the cumulative effects of water taking and subsequent discharge at this site will affect the ecological and hydrological integrity of the systems as a whole.

For more details, see the Ontario Lands Tribunal website at https://olt.gov.on.ca/