CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at help@airdberlis.com.

Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | Facilities | Ontario

Dec 18, 2020

OEB Approves Pipeline Route Realignment on Motion to Review and Vary

By Fred D. Cass

On March 12, 2020, the Ontario Energy Board approved construction by Imperial Oil Limited of a pipeline for the transportation of refined petroleum products from a facility in Hamilton to a facility in Toronto. The pipeline was proposed by Imperial Oil to replace an existing pipeline that is reaching the end of its serviceable life and it largely follows the route of the existing pipeline. Subsequent to the OEB’s decision granting leave to construct, Imperial Oil requested, by letter to the OEB, three changes to the OEB-approved route for the pipeline.

An OEB staff member, acting under delegated authority, found that two of the route changes proposed by Imperial Oil were not material, but that the third proposed change would be material. The third proposed change would directly affect 23 parcels of land including six properties, owned by five different landowners, that were not directly impacted by the OEB-approved route. Because the six properties were not part of the OEB-approved route, the owners of these properties did not receive notice of Imperial Oil’s leave to construct application and did not have the opportunity to participate in the leave to construct proceeding.

The OEB determined that it would treat Imperial Oil’s third proposed route change as a motion to review and vary the leave to construct decision. On December 17, 2020, the OEB issued its decision in respect of the motion to review and vary. The OEB found that the third proposed change was necessitated by requirements of the Ministry of Transportation and Hydro One Networks Inc. for their future expansion plans. The OEB went on to find that Imperial Oil had demonstrated the need for the route realignment, in that the previously approved route was no longer feasible for a portion of the pipeline.

In the December 2020 decision, the OEB also considered other aspects of the proposed route realignment, including environmental matters, landowner issues, safety and emergency response issues and indigenous consultation. The OEB concluded that the proposed route realignment is in the public interest and it approved the realignment subject to the same conditions of approval as set out in a schedule to the March 2020 decision.

Areas of Expertise

Related Blogs

Posted in: Facilities | Practice & Procedure | Canada (Federal)

Insights EnergyInsider
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Approval of Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project By David Stevens and Benjamin Mayer-Goodman Jul 03, 2020 On July 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a group of First Nations in British Columbia who sought to challenge the federal Cabinet’s second approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project.

Posted in: Facilities | Ontario | Practice & Procedure

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Approves “Hybrid” Option for Replacement of Natural Gas Pipeline By Fred D. Cass Apr 03, 2020 On April 1, the OEB approved a “hybrid” option for Enbridge Gas Inc.'s application to construct a natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities replacing approximately 64 kilometres of its Windsor pipeline.