To help raise money, DurhamCLEAR is collecting wine/liquor/beer bottles and beer cans as well as 1-litre glass jars (any kind) which have been requested by a local caterer.

Saturday, January 14, 10 am-4 pm

After thoroughly digesting Justice Lauwers' decision, DurhamCLEAR has decided to appeal the security portion of his decision.

While we were delighted that he gave us standing to proceed and that he declared that we qualified as a public interest litigant, We were stymied by the requirement to post security. DurhamCLEAR does not have $40,000 and it would be impossible to raise that amount within the time frame allowed.

Up until this decision there has been a generally accepted legal principle that public interest litigants were treated differently with respect to cost awards, and were not required to post security for costs.

This ruling is a concern not just to DurhamCLEAR but to public interest litigants throughout Canada.

DurhamCLEAR has little choice but to appeal this aspect of his decision.

As a result, an application for Leave to Appeal was filed on Friday, December 23.

Our lawyers will appear in Newmarket court on Feb 8, 2012 to set a date for the Leave to Appeal hearing. If Leave is granted, then the actual appeal will go before a three-judge panel at a date still farther in the future.

Should leave be granted, this appeal will greatly lengthen the legal process. Among other things this gives us longer to raise the money to pay, not only our own legal bills, but potentially give us enough money to post the $40,000 should we lose the appeal.

Meanwhile, the Region has indicated that it wants to start construction of the incinerator this month (January). Clarington has granted Site Plan approval and an application for the Building Permit on a portion of the project has been received. It is "for a small part of the main building and is for a footing and foundation for the refuse pit area and tipping area only".

Justice Lauwers released his decision late afternoon, Dec 15.

He has ruled that DurhamCLEAR has met the requirements to proceed with the application that, if Durham Region proceeds with the incinerator on the Courtice site, it would be violating Clarington's zoning by-law and Official Plan. Durham Region has lost its motion to stop our application from moving forward. That's the first piece of good news.

In addition, Lauwers has agreed that we are a public interest litigant. That's the 2nd piece of good news.

However, he has ruled on the security of costs motion that we need to have "some skin in the game" - specifically, DurhamCLEAR is required to post $40,000 in security at least 7 days "before the final argument of the application" (possibly March or later). It is important to note that this is just security and would be returned to us if we win - and in our view our prospects appear very good.

However, as all of you are aware, DurhamCLEAR does not have $40,000 - indeed we have an already substantial legal bill that needs to be paid.

This part of the ruling is clearly a disappointment. Nevertheless, Eric and our other lawyers are keen to see the action proceed and are still reviewing the ruling. They have already identified a number of options for us to consider and we will be exploring these with them in the coming days.

We remain confident that we can find a way to proceed and look forward to arguing the main motion in court.

We're still very much in the game. Yes, you can fight city hall!

The full text of Lauwers' ruling is here

In the runup to the court hearing on Nov.30, Covanta is arguing that the opposition to the incinerator is just a bunch of NIMBYs and that there is no strong public interest in this case.

For this reason, we need to pack the court room as a visible indication that the public is still strongly engaged.

Covanta is implying among other things that our interest is monetary and that all we want is to protect our property interests - which is very interesting since they have maintained all along that the incinerator would have no affect on property values.

The legal arguments have been flying back and forth in preparation for Wednesday's hearing. The arguments will be technical and probably boring but the hearing is only 2 hours long - and vital to the future of the incinerator.

We have set up an event page on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/events/239206046141846/ where you can indicate whether you can come or not. Courtrooms are not assigned until the day before and if we know a lot will be coming, perhaps we can get a larger courtroom.

We're finally getting our day in court - Wed. Nov. 30, 9:30 am in Oshawa Court in front of Justice Lauwers. Unlike the previous dates we've had and cancelled, the lawyers have agreed to a 2-hour session in which they can debate a couple of procedural motions.

The Region's lawyer, Stephen Waque (Borden, Ladner, Gervais) has brought forward a motion questioning the standing of DurhamCLEAR, and Covanta's lawyer, Doug Thomson (McCarthy Tetrault), has brought forward a motion for security of costs.

Our lawyer, Eric Gillespie is confident we can get past both motions.

In April of this year, Liz Bennian, President of the Ontario Zero-Waste Coalition, along with representatives of other organizations, met with officials of the Ministry of the Environment to encourage them to move rapidly towards the Zero-Waste vision that they had enunciated in a discussion paper almost 2 years earlier. Doug Anderson, Presient of DurhamCLEAR, was part of the delegation. They presented a letter to the Ministry with 10 specific action points including an end to incineration.

Also, on September 15, the 3 local anti-incineration groups, DuurhamCLEAR, ZeroWaste4ZeroBurning and DurhamEnvironmentWatch sent a very detailed letter authored by Wendy Bracken concerning a number of flaws in the Environmental Assessment and Certificate of Approval with particular attention on PM2.5. This letter was sent to both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health. click here

The Ministry has not replied to either letter.

With Ontario going to the polls within the week, residents need to know where the government stands on these issues, and, should a different party form the government, we need to know where they stand as well.

To elicit a response, the coalition has sent a letter to all the party leaders as well as the media, reiterating the issues and requesting a response before the election

Sep 26, 2011 reprinted from Solid Waste & Recycling

British Columbians will soon be able to recycle their used or broken small appliances at over 100 convenient drop-off locations thanks to Unplugged, the Small Appliance Recycling Program.

Starting October 1, 2011, Unplugged will accept more than 120 small appliances for recycling, ranging from toasters and electric toothbrushes to countertop microwaves and vacuum cleaners.

Unplugged - the first small appliance recycling program of its kind in Canada and the only government-approved small appliance recycling program in British Columbia (B.C.) - aims to divert two million small appliances from landfills, helping to reduce pollution, save energy and protect the environment.

The program, administered by the Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association in partnership with B.C.-based Product Care Association, will also help save energy by recycling materials such as aluminum, which takes 95 per cent less energy to recycle than it does to make the material from raw resources.

After an appliance is brought to a drop-off location, it is transported to processors in Western Canada and separated into different materials, which are then recycled. Metals will be smelted down and recycled into other metal products, while plastics and glass will be sorted and sold or reused in various manufacturing processes.

As a non-profit program, Unplugged will be fully funded by a recycling fee applied to new products brought into B.C. by small appliance manufacturers and retailers.

The recycling fee covers all program costs, including collection, transportation and recycling, and may be included in a product's price or displayed as a separate charge at check-out.

• Get the latest information on our legal fight
• Discuss and help organize new initiatives

Many new faces have joined the anti-incinerator fight in the last couple of months. This meeting will provide us an opportunity to bring everybody up to speed with the latest information.

Click HERE to download a flyer which you can print out and post in your neighbourhood - lampposts, grocery stores, etc.

Please tell/invite your friends.

Region hires expensive lawyer

Durham Region has hired one of the most expensive lawyers in Toronto to defend them against our challenge on the zoning of the property.

This is confirmation that our action is on the right track - that our case is strong and theirs is weak.

Tens of thousands of your tax dollars will be used to try to defeat a legitimate and well-founded action by a local community group. Is that what democracy is all about?

Our first court date is still Sept 23 in the Oshawa Courthouse. This will be formalities only - the real action is unlikely to happen before November. We will be able to bring you an update at the public meeting.

The Sept. 4, 2011 edition of the Orono Weekly Times included an article written by DurhamCLEAR President, Doug Anderson.

The article is titled 'If not Incineration, then what?' and was inspired by the oft-repeated official line that incineration is the only alternative to landfill.

The article is reprinted here

The initial court hearing in our challenge of the zoning for the incinerator site has been set for Friday, Sept. 23, 9:30 am at Durham Region Courthouse in Oshawa. Further information will be posted here  as the date approaches.

For more information on the case and our legal team, please refer to our earlier story: Legal action commenced against incinerator.

Now that the date is set, our fundraising efforts are more important than ever. Receipts to date are on track but we still have a long way to go.

Our lawyers have told us to expect a minimum of $15,000, but we're aiming for $25,000 in order to have a substantial cushion.

Demonstrations serve an important purpose but in themselves cannot stop this project. We need a well-funded legal challenge to carry the momentum into the courtroom.