Monthly Archives: August 2013
The dates so far are:
Preliminary Hearing: September 16 10:00am
First Day of Hearing: October 15 10:00am
(but please note – these dates can change – I will keep you informed if they do)
Please consider being a Party, Participant or Presenter at this appeal.
If you have a particular concern that relates to the appeal, a home that could be affected by flicker, a farm by stray voltage, a child who is sensitive to noise, a natural area that is threatened by the development, you have an expertise in an issue that relates to the appeal…please consider being one of the above. If you aren’t sure, talk to contact us or call the ERT and ask their opinion. The more faces the ERT panel sees, with real issues at hand, the more alive and REAL the appeal is — add your voice. It can be a very short presentation, or lengthy.
If you are at all considering this, read the notice below. If you know of anyone who may be interested- please send them the info.
Interest must be expressed by September 11 @ 4pm to the case coordinator.
Presenters and Participants are not subject to the possibility of costs being assessed, so don’t worry about that.
This appeal will tackle everything from health, to stray voltage, road safety, habitat loss etc.…the whole kit and caboodle.
There are 2 appellants: MLWAG Inc. (with Harvey named, and Eric Gillespie listed as legal counsel), and me (with well….me).
We plan to call witnesses from different parts of the world – some may come in person and others we hope to have broadcast in by videoconferencing. Attendance of the public in numbers would be very appreciated at these hearings.
Donations. We do need to raise some cash to pay for the basics though. If you can help financially, it would be greatly appreciated, and put to very good use.
Cheques can be made out to “Middlesex Lambton Wind Action Group Inc.”
Middlesex Lambton Wind Action Group Inc.
1503 Napperton Dr.,
Kerwood, ON N0M 2B0
Many thanks for all your support,
Paul Morden, Sarnia Observer
Darryl De Groot says it’s gotten to the point that farmers have stopped waving to each other on Northville Road. And that’s just one impact the dairy farmer sees that Ontario’s Green Energy Act, and Nextera’s proposed Jericho wind energy project, is having on rural Lambton Shores. “Country life out here, it’s not like it once was,” De Groot said.
Florida-based Nextera is planning to build a 92-turbine wind farm in Lambton Shores and neighbouring Warwick Township, and the community has divided between farmers who signed leases, allowing the wind companies to build turbines on their land, and those who didn’t, De Groot said. When the land agents came around in 2008, he and his father took a look at what they were offering, and turned them down. “Dad said, ‘You know what, anything to do with the government that is 50 pages long, don’t sign it.'”
But other farmers did, including some of De Groot’s neighbours. Nextera received a contract to sell power to Ontario, and is in the final stages of securing provincial environmental approval to move ahead with its project. “Farmers aren’t waving at each other on the roads any more,” De Groot said. “It’s sad . . . it should have been done a different way. It shouldn’t have been pushed on us.”
De Groot grew up on the farm near the small community of Arkona, went to agricultural college, married and has a one-year-old child he still hopes will be the fourth generation of the family to farm on Northville Road. Read article
A most interesting letter of legal opinion written on Nov. 20, 2012, by former Supreme Court Justice, Ian Binnie, popped up with the latest regurgitation of Gas Plant e-mails. Justice Binnie replies to David Livingston, McGuinty’s former chief of staff asked about the possibility of suing opposition members citing outrageous allegations made by PC leader Tim Hudak and MPP Todd Smith in Question Period in October of 2012.
Hmmm this sounds familiar – like The Nexterror SLAPP lawsuit against Esther Wrightman where she is accused of unfairly competing with NextEra by referring to the company as Nexterror. McGuinty got good advice and, unlike Nexterror, he followed that advice. The letter of opinion is a reality lecture wherein Justice Binnie, with rather dry humour, paints out the possible scenarios and why for Dalton, this notion of suing his enemies is not a good notion at all.
Justice Binnie begins, “Many of the allegations…are in our view clearly defamatory…the law provides a low threshold. It is protective of reputations.” That sounds promising. He further states, “Mr. Hudak’s statement is also defamatory”
Hudak had said: “Not only did Dalton McGuinty misuse a billion dollars of taxpayer’s money, he tried to paper over it, cover it up (and) keep the details from the public.” Remember, this was written on Nov.29, 2012. As it turns out, what Hudak said isn’t too far off the mark. Read the rest of this entry
Over the past five years there have been many questionable ‘meetings’ in the Adelaide-Metcalfe council chambers, especially when wind turbines are involved. For starters, the mayor and the deputy-mayor have close relatives who have signed wind option agreements, and they never declare a conflict of interest. Then there was the time the police were called to stop a resident from video recording the open meetings. Oh yes and when the CAO’s husband physically struck out at a resident taking a picture of them entering a closed meeting with Suncor. Items have been left off agendas, mis-reported in minutes…the list goes on, and frustration builds.
So to say the residents are skeptical, leery, untrusting of this council, is an understatement. And for good reason. Even the ombudsman’s office has had their fill of this council. With 6 “Best Practices”, and 3 “Violations” found in the last year and a half, this little township of 3000 is practically topping the province for infractions— beating out the big cities (oh yes, even London).
If a resident happens upon an improper closed meeting, it’s usually by fluke. And so it was with the most recent revelation with the Ad-Met council, when a closed meeting on January 25, 2012 was discovered in the “Municipal Correspondence” section of the wind developer WPD’s submission (See pg. 130). Yep, check those out for your local project!
The Township CAO/treasurer Fran Urbshott, was contacted by the office of the Ombudsman and an investigation has been initiated, as all but one of the township councillors and the mayor were there— a quorum present and the public was not invited, let alone notified….nor were minutes taken….the township has no record of the meeting, thankfully the wind company does. Read the rest of this entry
Oh yes, after they are done their AMO conference, of course. This invite below was recently sent to Ontario township councillors in advance of the conference.
I mean, what better way to conduct a business meeting between township officials (representing the people) and Wind Companies? No public around to watch and listen, and alcohol to help influence decisions! Win-win, eh?
A Renewable Energy Approval (REA) has been issued to Kerwood Wind Inc. (NextEra Energy) to engage in a renewable energy project in respect of a Class 4 wind facility consisting of the construction, installation, operation, use and retiring of up to 37 turbines, rated at 1.6 MW generating output capacity, with a total name plate capacity of 59.9 MW. The wind facility will be connected to Hydro One’s distribution system.
This Class 4 wind facility, known as the Adelaide Wind Energy Centre, consists of areas required for the wind facility components, as well as for the interconnection route. The wind facility will be is located in the Municipality of North Middlesex and Township of Adelaide-Metcalfe in Middlesex County. The REA requires the proponent to construct, install, operate, use and retire the facility in accordance with specific terms and conditions. Read more
Well, fret no more, NextEra has just put a cheque on the doorstep of a property owner in North Middlesex even though he did not sign an easement for the proposed 100′ pole line in front of his house. Lots of other people refused to sign, but this savvy landowner took the lease to a lawyer requesting that “independent legal advice” (ILA) be written. The landman even promised that NextEra would pay up to $1500 for legal advice.
NextEra (commonly referred to as Nexterror) refused to sign the amended contract. When the landowner asked for payment for his legal fees, he was told, “I received your request for compensation related to the payment of legal review of NextEra’s easement offer. In this case, we do not yet have an executed agreement and, as I mentioned, NextEra does not normally pay legal fees for review of unsigned easements.” End of story? Not quite, read on. Read the rest of this entry