Eric Gillespie representing CAMPP at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, October 8, 2019 (Photo by Maureen Revait.)Eric Gillespie representing CAMPP at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, October 8, 2019 (Photo by Maureen Revait.)
Windsor

CAMPP concludes arguments against planned mega-hospital location

An appeal of an important ruling regarding the Windsor-region's new mega-hospital is now in the hands of a Divisional Court judge, following the final day of arguments from the citizen group fighting the hospital's planned location.

Lawyers representing Citizens for an Accountable Mega-Hospital Planning Process (CAMPP) concluded their case on Monday for the appeal of a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that supported amendments to the City of Windsor's Official Plan.  The decision was a crucial ruling that will allow a new $2 billion hospital to be built at County Road 42 and Concession Road 9.

CAMPP has been advocating to have the hospital built in Windsor's core, closer to where the majority of residents reside.

The group's lawyers accused the City of Windsor on Monday of failing to adequately consult with First Nations before making the amendments to its official plan.

While the city's lawyers showed evidence that emails had been sent to Caldwell First Nations and Walpole Island, CAMPP lawyer Eric Gillespie argued that Walpole was not given adequate time for consultation. He said a typo in the First Nation's email address prevented indigenous leaders from receiving them until the error was caught and addressed on the final day for submissions.

It was also argued that the city did not consider the impacts of climate change by having the hospital so far from the city's core. CAMPP has contested that the selected site will significantly increase motor vehicle use.

As well, Gillespie argued that when the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal made its decision it did not properly interpret provincial planning policy, which puts emphasis on placing emergency services near where people live.

Gillespie said CAMPP's arguments constitute errors in law which, if true, is the only grounds for which a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision can be appealed.

Monday's hearing ended with Superior Court Justice Gregory Verbeem reserving his decision on CAMPP’s application. The decision will be submitted in writing at a later date.

Read More Local Stories