Skip to main content

A pump jack works in front of a wind farm in Southwestern Ontario in July, 2012.

RANDALL MOORE/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Wind turbines are like new neighbours who might drive you to distraction and out of your home because you have no legal way to deal with the situation, a packed Ontario court heard Monday.

In submissions to Divisional Court, a lawyer for four families fighting large-scale wind-energy projects compared the turbines to a neighbour who is always noisy and in your face.

"This neighbour never once ruptured your eardrums but that neighbour slowly drives you crazy," Julian Falconer told the court.

Story continues below advertisement

"These turbines are those nightmare neighbours."

The families are trying to get the court to declare provincial legislation related to the approvals of large-scale wind farms unconstitutional.

In essence, they argue, the legislation makes it impossible to scuttle a project on the basis of potential health effects.

"The priority is to get the turbines up come hell or high water and that's what they do," Mr. Falconer said.

"My clients have to wait until the turbines are spinning before they get to make an argument they must be stopped – it's Alice in Wonderland."

The Drennans, who live near Goderich, Ont., are among the families involved in the first constitutional challenge to the Green Energy Act to reach the appellate court level.

Twelve turbines of the proposed 140-turbine K2 Wind project are being put up within two kilometres of their long-held farmstead.

Story continues below advertisement

"I must prove it will harm me, where if I was a drug company, they would have to prove they were safe," Shawn Drennan said in an interview. "The wind company does not have to do that."

Mr. Falconer, who sought to introduce a new Health Canada study as fresh evidence, said the science on the health impacts of wind turbines is unsettled.

A summary of the federal study, released Nov. 6, turned up no direct link between wind-turbine noise and health effects, such as headaches, high blood pressure and stress.

However, the study did uncover a link between turbine noise and "high annoyance."

"The findings support a potential link between long-term high annoyance and health," the summary states.

"We did find that people who were highly annoyed were more likely to report other health effects."

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Falconer told the court that people have consistently reported being driven from their homes by turbines.

At the same time, he said, provincial legislation makes it impossible for reasonable people to argue the turbines might harm them.

"They must prove that it will harm them," he said. "That's constitutionally unsound."

The court, he said, should alter the "rigged" legislation to force authorities to consider a "reasonable prospect of harm" when approving a project.

Associate chief justice Frank Marrocco, one of the three appellate judges hearing the case, admonished the courtroom crowd for applauding some of the submissions.

Earlier in the day, a lawyer for a coalition of 14 community groups said the right of citizens to fight turbines on the basis of health impacts is illusory.

In his submission, Richard Macklin noted the province's Environmental Review Tribunal has heard 20 health-based challenges to wind farm projects.

"They have all been unsuccessful," Mr. Macklin said. "We see that as a cumulative charter violation."

In addition, Lambton county sought to intervene on the grounds that provincial legislation has usurped the right of municipalities to regulate against potential harm to their residents.

The judges said they would decide at a later point whether to allow the written interventions and admit the fresh evidence.

The hearing continues Tuesday, when the government gets a chance to argue its case.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.