Wind farm opponents’ complaint lacked proof: judge

A group of landowners in Simcoe County, Ontario, was unsuccessful in using the courts to prevent the construction of a wind farm in their area. The group sued the company that would construct the project, wpd Canada Corporation, as well as the farmers who own the land on which the project is proposed to be built.

The Fairview Wind Project is described as an industrial wind farm with a capacity to generate 18.4 MW of electricity. The landowners wanted the court to grant an injunction to prevent construction, and to award “compensatory damages” of $16.6 million for loss of property value, negligence, nuisance and other complaints. The case was dismissed without a trial, the judge ruling that the plaintiffs were unable to prove that they had a cause of action.

The contract for the project was awarded under the Ontario Power Authority’s Feed-in Tariff program (FIT) in May, 2010. The landowners claimed that as soon as Fairview Wind Farm issued public notice of the project, as required by law, the value of their property fell and they were put at risk of negative health effects from the proposed wind turbines.

However, the court ruled that these claims were entirely speculative, especially given that the project had not yet begun construction. Since the plaintiffs in the case couldn’t prove that their land had lost value, there could be no compensation. A legal blogger at Dale & Lessman LLP wrote that opponents of wind farms should be sure that they can prove their claims of damages due to wind farm developments in future if they intend to initiate a legal action. Otherwise they risk the same result as in the Fairview case. Legal costs, which are generally borne by the unsuccessful litigant, could be in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

According to the legal blog, the court in this case left open the possibility for the plaintiffs to sue the wind developer again, if there is concrete evidence to support their claims. For that, there must be a “high degree of probability” that the alleged harms will in fact occur.

Did you miss this?

Other Popular Stories

  • Bruce Power nuclear deal good for Ontario manufacturers: CME
  • Clean technologies for mining: Green Mining's time has come
  • FirstEnergy of Calgary to host ninth London Global Energy Conference
  • Ontario Energy Board to ban door-to-door selling of energy
  • US could be free of non-North American oil by 2020
  • NA clean energy goal of 50 per cent can't be met without nuclear, industry says
  • Manufacturing closer to stabilizing in January: report
  • Low oil prices not a serious threat to Canada's economy: RBC
  • Drone use by business set to explode, worth $127B by 2020: PwC
  • Federal government urged to speak up for nuclear at Paris climate talks
  • TransCanada submits new, more costly proposal for Energy East pipeline
  • Resource-based provinces lead in wage gains
  • Bombardier, Air Canada Jazz taking part in European MRO event
  • Supply of oil at record highs, at 100 million barrels a day for the “first time ever”; expected to grow
  • New Boeing 737 Max 8 crash mystery. Why did Lion Air flight 610 crash, killing 189 people, only 13 minutes after take-off?
  • Ontario's electricity operator announces 16 solar, wind and hydro contracts
  • Electricity rates a disadvantage for Canadian industry: report
  • Toronto Hydro testing underwater energy storage system for backup power
  • Compact reactor could make fusion dream a reality
  • Giant wind-solar development announces SMA Canada for O&M
Scroll to Top