...
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Protect Our Water & Environmental Resources v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of Environment)
【24h】

Protect Our Water & Environmental Resources v. Ontario (Director, Ministry of Environment)

机译:保护我们的水和环境资源诉安大略省(环境部部长)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Director, Ministry of Environment, issued company amended permit to take water from quarry - Residents of area near quarry and environmental organization applied for leave to appeal amended permit - Application dismissed - Residents had standing to seek leave to appeal - Some members of environmental organization resided near quarry -Mandate of organization was, among other things, to focus on water-related issues -Organization had interest in decision and therefore standing to seek leave to appeal -Company and Director objected to paragraphs in residents' and organizations' reply submission - Reply's references to karst geology modestly expanded on some points made in application for leave, but was allowable since no new argument to grant leave was made - Statement that Niagara Escarpment was world biosphere reserve was allowable, given that it was mere statement without new argument as to significance of designation - Blasting was raised in application for leave and reply did not significantly expand on issue or raise any new issue, but rather was limited elaboration helpful to understanding issue - Brief discussion of study could not be relied on because study itself was not in evidence - References as to likely differences between submitted draft report of environmental consulting firm and final conclusions were to be expunged - Letter from firmrnas to direction of final conclusions was considered - Residents and organization did not meet lest for leave to appeal.
机译:环境部部长对已发行公司的取水许可证进行了修改-采石场附近地区的居民和环境组织申请了上诉许可修改后的许可证-申请被驳回-居民有权寻求上诉许可-环境组织的某些成员居住采石场附近-组织的职责主要是与水有关的问题-组织对决策感兴趣,因此有权寻求上诉许可-公司和董事反对居民和组织的答复中的段落-答复的喀斯特地质学的提法在申请休假时的某些观点上略有扩展,但由于没有新的授予休假的论点而被允许-允许尼亚加拉悬崖悬崖是世界生物圈保护区的说法是允许的,因为这仅仅是关于新的论点而没有新的论点指定的意义-提出请假申请时提出了爆破要求,但未收到答复极大地扩展问题或提出任何新问题,但详尽的阐述有助于理解问题-由于研究本身没有证据,因此不能依靠研究的简短讨论-提及的环境咨询公司报告草稿之间可能存在差异最终结论将被删除-考虑到从Firmrnas到最终结论方向的信-居民和组织没有碰到上诉许可的请求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号