A participant described the desire to help others understand the GEA’s effects.

The Green Energy Act…I just know that the truth will come out in the end. This truth, and I’m speaking of today…it will be exactly what people need to know…If this helps even one family, even one farmer, that’s really good…I don’t know what the future holds…but I do know how affected I’ve been. I’ve been to a lot of meetings…I’ve spoken up at every one…if I could help with this, then that’s why I’m here.

During 2007 to 2009, neighbours living in proximity to WPPs described their adverse health effects (AHEs) [10] (a-c) [11] [12] (a-f). Some reported they had taken the step to vacate their homes.

During a GEA Standing Committee public hearing, a witness testified that due to the noise and lack of sleep, the IWT located behind their home was permanently “shut down.” In addition, three or four other IWTs were “running on low rpm” and were shut down at night [12] (a). A witness from a group of families testified about the emotional and social stresses and having to defend their health problems at community events. The witness commented that:

...dysfunctional community relations have been created by the wind project representatives and some community members trying to discredit the validity of our problems [12] (b).

In addition, the witness testified that:

The family unit for each family has deteriorated and has been torn apart. We begged for sleep, and four families were billeted by the wind company from their homes for 90 to 180 days in motels, hotels and a rooming house [12] (b).

Furthermore, a group of neighbours advised the GEA Standing Committee that while some politicians and the wind industry tried to “cast doubt by disrespecting” their experiences, their deteriorating health changes were “not opinions” [12] (b). AHEs included: sleep deprivation, lack of concentration; feeling unwell, i.e., depression, tiredness, anxiety and stress. It was noted that the effects start to “subside when you leave the polluted environment of your home” [12] (c). One of the witnesses testified that his doctor had advised him to “leave the home” and he was now living in town. However, he went back and forth to his farm to do chores and look after a “feedlot of 550 cattle” [12] (d).

The GEA Standing Committee members were advised that even pets were “affected while in the home, losing hair, sore ears, but not when away from the home” [12] (c).

Other witnesses testified to concerns about the loss of rights and a risk to health [12] (e) and the lack of protection of neighbours’ agricultural land, livelihoods, personal health and the health of their animals [12] (f).

After the above presentations, Dr. Robert McMurtry, Professor Emeritus and former Dean of Medicine and Dentistry, (Western University, Canada) provided the GEA Standing Committee with a preview of the results of an Ontario study that described the findings of neighbours’ AHEs [13] . Subsequently, the results of this study were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal [14] .

It was suggested by Whiteley et al. that the government “erred by creating an inflexible policy/statute”. In addition, the policy ensured that IWTs would be “approved, erected and become operational at any cost”. Suggestions were presented for mitigating some of the policy’s outcomes and how to prevent the impacts on “social justice from happening again.” It was observed that the government actions taken to “achieve this position” were contrary to widely held “fundamental principles of administrative law and governmental legitimacy” [15] .

Furthermore:

There were many obstacles in even filing an appeal, one of those being that appeals of Renewable Energy Approvals were cost-prohibitive, with legal fees ranging from several thousand to millions of dollars [15] .

An analysis by an Ontario researcher summarized some of the GEA’s expected effects. Examples included: a 50% increase in electricity rates; an inability to reach the creation of 50,000 jobs; rural environmental degradation; an increase in health and stress problems; and a loss of property value [16] .

Fast et al. observed that in order to avoid potential delays by “recalcitrant residents” the Ontario Planning Act was amended so that municipalities no longer had “direct control over land-use decisions.” In response to this amendment, 89 Ontario municipalities passed resolutions declaring themselves as “unwilling hosts.” Another finding was that the issues concerning the social acceptance of wind energy are major challenges for policymakers, communities and wind developers. The authors also commented that this had an impact on the legitimacy of societal decisions to pursue wind energy [17] .

During this time, a media outlet reported a former Premier of Ontario saying that: regarding “wind-farms”, it was okay to “object on the basis of safety issues and environmental standards”. But if there were “real concerns”, put them forward. But “don’t say, ‘I don’t want it around here’...NIMBYism will no longer prevail” [18] .

Fast et al. suggested that:

Given the empirical evidence suggesting that a “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) motivation inadequately describes wind energy siting disputes¹³, it was a risky strategy [17] .

A news outlet reported that regarding proof of causality, Dr. Lynn, a former Ontario MOH (Medical Officer of Health) had acknowledged:

Proving causality from environmental exposures has always been tricky, Lynn said, and the research is only now beginning to catch up to the wind turbine industry. “It’s difficult to get all of these things with good evidence”, she said, “Smoking took us 50 years to prove it was causing heart disease, lung disease and all that kind of stuff. And we knew it did long before that [19] .”

Proving causality is ranked by the BioInitiatives Working Group:

…proof of causality ranks at about 95% to 99% certainty and is rarely possible for biological systems; the Precautionary Principle ranks at the about the 50% medium level, consistent with civil and some administrative law; and environmental protection has a low level of certainty (10% to 30%) [20] .²

It was proposed by authors Punch and James that based on information from scientific and peer-reviewed publications, papers presented at scientific conferences, government documents, and print and web-based media, there is sufficient evidence to establish:

a general causal link between a variety of commonly observed adverse health effects and noise emitted by industrial wind turbines [21] .

Ontario’s first Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that was held under the GEA received testimony under oath from 11 international expert witnesses. While the appeal was dismissed, the Decision acknowledged “serious harm to human health” included both direct and indirect impacts:

…“serious harm to human health” includes both direct impacts (e.g., a passer-by being injured by a falling turbine blade or a person losing hearing) or indirect impacts (e.g., a person being exposed to noise and then exhibiting stress and developing other related symptoms). This approach is consistent with both the WHO definition of health and Canadian jurisprudence on the topic [22] .

This Decision also acknowledged the potential for IWTs harming humans.

This case has successfully shown that the debate should not be simplified to one about whether wind turbines can cause harm to humans. The evidence presented to the Tribunal demonstrates that they can, if facilities are placed too close to residents. The debate has now evolved to one of degree [22] .

While the above Decision acknowledged both direct and indirect effects, the “degree” of what constitutes serious harm was unclear. In an effort to determine the legal definition of “serious harm to human health” a neighbour planning to appeal a REA requested that the MOE (Ministry of Environment) clarify the legal definition of “will cause”. He also requested the “medical source” used in support of the definition as well as the legal definition of causing serious and irreversible harm to plant and animal life. Other requests were whether “irreversible” meant being outside a certain boundary and whether the prediction of extinction met global, federal, provincial or regional laws [23] .

A representative of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General responded:

I cannot provide you with the specific answers that you have asked for in the context of this litigation. The MOE has no general statement which sets out a position on the definitions of the terms used in the legislation [24] .

Due to the lack of “specific answers” the neighbour withdrew his application to appeal the project’s approval [25] .

Subsequently in 2016, an Appellant who was appealing another REA, requested clarification on the definition of “serious harm”. The response from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change stated that:

It should be noted that serious harm is not defined in O. Reg. 359/09 or the Environmental Protection Act, the determination of whether a renewable energy project will cause serious harm is done by the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT), if there is an appeal, based on the evidence before it and the nature of the harm alleged [26] .

In 2018, a newly elected Ontario government repealed the GEA. It delivered on its “promise to repeal” the Act that had led to the “disastrous feed-in-tariff program and skyrocketing electricity rates for Ontario families.” The government also noted it restored “planning decisions to municipalities” and that “local voices” would have the final “say on energy projects in their communities” [27] .

To conclude, the WPP facilities that were approved under the GEA continue to operate. Study participants and their neighbours who live near the WPPs remain vulnerable to the potential for AHEs. For example, Wind Concerns Ontario reports that a project that was due to expire in 2026 has been extended to 2031:

The project has a long and controversial history, due to hundreds of complaints of noise pollution from residents, so severe that some people abandoned their homes. Our own findings from documents received under Freedom of Information is that the Melancthon power project was number one in Ontario for noise complaints related to the turbines and a transformer [28] .

In 2008, a case study examined the health risks and the “policies, regulations and social controversies surrounding wind farm noise in Ontario” [29] . They asked “how and why noise” became controversial and provided a detailed description of how Ontario established policies and regulations in order to address this concern. Among the findings was a loss of local government authority over planning matters and a:

growing mistrust in government and industry’s ability to effectively and fairly manage the risks of wind turbine noise [29] .

Shain commented that regulations under the GEA:

cannot legitimately (according to a Rawlsian view) simply trump the claims and rights of subpopulations of citizens to the protection of their own and their families’ health or enjoyment of their property based on some preconceived and unconfirmed notion of overall benefit to population health [30] .

McRobert et al. observed that the GEA advanced conflicts between developers, regulators, residents and municipal officials. They advocated for environmental justice, fairness and health protection and stated:

Promoting and approving renewable energy projects in a manner that disregards public opinion and silences the voices of those most affected by the projects is a form of injustice, even if the result involves more wind turbines and solar panels. A process that pits communities against multinational corporations and the government in a highly stacked and unequal relationship is not the type of action that proponents of environmental protection should condone. Nor is it a laudable when multinational corporations profit with few benefits for directly affected communities [31] .

Evans expressed the concept of “Collateral Damage” and the role of the Precautionary Principle:

Public Health, in particular, must remember its roots in Utilitarianism which condoned the acceptance of some Collateral Damage provided that the greatest happiness of the greatest number was ensured. The degree of Collateral Damage caused by wind farms should be totally unacceptable to Public Health which must, like good government, fully exercise the Precautionary Principle [32] .

A neighbor residing in the USA provided a perspective associated with living near a WPP. During a county board meeting, the neighbor stated that “we were never part of the decision making process for location”. She noted that “no one asked me if I minded how close it was and whether or not it would affect my horses, my other animals and of course us that live there”. She also commented that when the developer’s representative was questioned about the risk of effects on their horses and pets, family members from LFN/vibration, property values and whether they would buy them out, “He always said I will not have a problem so there was no need to even concern myself [33] .”

Whiteley & Dumbrille concluded that it was demonstrated how government working with industry:

created bias that favoured industry over the safety and well-being of the public and the environment. The government demonstrated a failure to regulate, to the benefit of the wind industry and associated members, to the prejudice of residents [15] .

Participants became informed through their attendance and observations of various proceedings such as, Ontario ERTs and other judicial/administrative processes; local municipal meetings, and information sessions. Each example below is by a different participant.

Outcomes from the [Municipality], a request to municipalities that they raise a resolution that simply says, we support the principles of this challenging of the Green Energy Act based on protections for people. What do I see but our Council goes into hidden session and consults with a lawyer and comes out and says we can’t support this.

There was nowhere to address [leaving a home] in the ERT. The province just refuses to take any responsibility for it. The municipal level, the provincial level, you really feel abandoned by any process that protects landowners.

Those wishing to appeal a WPP approval could request an ERT hearing. Overall, over 50 ERT hearings were held [35] . See also Section 3.1 Ontario, Canada’s Green Energy Act (GEA) (Table 1).

The first appeal of a REA was held during 2010 and 2011. The ERT heard testimony under oath by international witnesses who were qualified as experts [36] . During testimony by a government witness, it was acknowledged that a neighbour had met with government officials regarding concerns about health impacts of IWTs. However, the witness could not recall the specific details of that discussion [36] (a). Another witness who was testifying for the proponent stated that he was aware that two families residing in the area of a WPP had stayed in motels [36] (b).

Ontario neighbours who had experienced AHEs or had concerns about this risk testified at another ERT [37] (a-c). During subsequent ERTs, some neighbours provided their medical records and testified under oath [38] (a-k) [39] (a-b). Neighbours’ testimony also included concerns about pre-existing medical conditions and the potential of an increased risk of harm [37] .

During one of the ERTs, an elderly woman who could not live in her home testified under oath that she “was being denigrated and disempowered and just being named as a whining complaining woman” [38] (j).

An ERT Decision acknowledged the witnesses who had testified about their AHEs:

Each post-turbine witness testified and was subject to cross-examination. The Approval Holder and Director raised issues around the neutrality of the witnesses, given that some have ongoing law suits against the turbine companies in their area and some have spoken out publicly against wind turbines. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds that each witness testified in a forthright manner to the best of his or her ability and recollection, and finds all of the post-turbine witnesses to be credible in reporting their symptoms, and how their symptoms negatively impact their quality of life [40] .

Furthermore the Decision stated:

The witnesses testified to a wide array of health problems, ranging from tinnitus and headaches to diabetes and high blood pressure, to severe psychological conditions [40] .

While the Decision that was cited previously found that the evidence did not establish that the project will cause serious harm to human health. However, it found that “serious and irreversible harm” would occur to the Blanding’s turtle, a species that is “globally endangered and threatened in Ontario” [40] . As a result, the ERT revoked the project approval [40] and the WPP has not been constructed.

In another case, an ERT found that:

...engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause both serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life or the natural environment, and serious harm to human health. These findings were based on evidence regarding the impact of the Project on a species at risk, specifically little brown myotis (little brown bat or Myotis lucifugus) and evidence regarding the impact of the Project on aviation safety ( [41] pg 3).

In addition, it was found that regarding “aviation safety”:

...the Approval Holder’s proposed mitigation measures were not feasible and “would not significantly reduce the likelihood of a collision with a wind turbine, or ground crash caused by wind-turbine induced turbulence for all wind turbines other than wind turbine 2 ( [41] pg 9).

Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that:

As the Tribunal has found that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause serious harm to human health, and neither the Approval Holder nor the Director have proposed effective means to mitigate this harm, the Tribunal finds that it is in the public interest to revoke the REA under s.145.2.1(4)(a) ( [41] pg 10).

To conclude, some environmental Tribunals have found serious harm to pilots and serious and irreversible harm to several species. In the meantime, neighbours who were appealing a REA on the basis of health impacts, and those who were testifying to their AHEs faced the daunting requirements of proving that the WPP “will cause serious harm to human health.” This proof was required before the WPP was built and operating.

In addition, while a Tribunal acknowledged neighbours’ sworn testimony of AHEs [40] , as a consequence of the GEA’s causality clause, their descriptions neither meet nor satisfied the “will cause serious harm” test. When an Appellant requested clarification of the legal definition of “will cause” [23] , he was advised that this was not in the legislation [24] .

Participants filed complaints/Incident Reports with various authorities. A study participant described being discouraged of doing so.

Have I called the hotline to say you know I’m concerned about my health… Have I called them? No. And should I have? Well, they say I should have and I’ve even told people they should do it but have I done it myself? No…It’s the government. They’re not looking out for me and it’s a waste of time…and they won’t do anything…There’re unanswered complaints everywhere and I don’t see it as helping me or helping anybody else and so I haven’t done it because they’ve taken enough time out of my life and I look at it that way.

Historically, the Ontario government has considered noise complaints as having merit. For example, prior to the introduction of the GEA, an OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) hearing held in 2007 found there was “great merit in requiring a local protocol to deal with legitimate noise complaints in a timely manner”. The Board directed that within 90 days of its Decision, the IWT developer was to present to the municipality a “Dispute Resolution Protocol” to deal with IWT noise. It also directed that monitoring stations and a “complaints monitoring and action protocol” be established to the satisfaction of several participating acousticians and the Municipality [10] .

A follow-up to the directives of the above OMB Decision was conducted in 2011 by an Ontario Professional Engineer. Based on the test results provided by the developer of the WPP, the review found evidence that the project was non-compliant. Complaints were lodged by a number of neighbours in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Process without resolution. Twelve years later, neither the terms of the Ministry Certificate of Approval (Air) nor the Complaint Resolution Protocol have been met [42] .

Records obtained through an Ontario Freedom of Information (FOI) request by the community coalition WCO (Wind Concerns Ontario) found that there were almost 6000 files of complaints about “wind turbine noise, vibration and sound pressure.” In 2018, 39% of the complaints noted AHEs. The records also showed that complaints did not result in “real action” by the WPP operators. This was “despite requirements” for the project approvals [43] .

In 2009, the Ontario MOE (Ministry of Environment) advised that there were methodological issues for determining compliance:

The current science available for measuring noise emanating from wind turbines is technically challenging, resource intensive and will still result in measurements which are difficult to reproduce and/or interpret. There is currently no scientifically accepted field methodology to measure wind turbine noise to determine compliance or to determine non compliance with a Certificate of Approval limits [44] .

Subsequently in 2011, it was reported that a supervisor of an environment ministry office warned that:

the ministry did not have the technology or capability to accurately measure wind turbine noise emissions in order to confirm compliance with regulations [28] .

Devlin comments:

Despite the growing chorus of complaints and adverse health reports on the public record from neighbors, as well as solid scientific evidence that IWTs were the cause, or perhaps because of these (“sic”) them, the wind industry has steadfastly chosen to ignore them and accelerate the siting of industrial-scale wind farms near residents [45] .

Complaints/Incident Reports can serve as an early warning system and result in taking action. Responses can be initiated quickly. For example, in 2009, it was reported that there were four complaints regarding an insulin syringe. In this case, the needles had detached from the syringe. As the result, 250 million insulin syringes manufactured between January 2002 and October 2009 were recalled [46] .

Health Canada considers “complaints” as a health effect:

Health Canada’s approach to noise assessment is to consider a variety of internationally recognized standards for acoustics (i.e. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA 1974), CAN/CSA ISO standards). Health Canada considers the following noise-induced endpoints as health effects: noise-induced hearing loss, sleep disturbance, interference with speech comprehension, complaints, and change in percent highly annoyed (%HA) [47] .

Correspondence by a former Canadian Minister of Environment acknowledged that regarding “wind turbine noise and health,” complaints were a “conclusively demonstrated” health effect:

Health Canada provides advice on the health effects of noise and low-frequency electric and magnetic fields from proposed wind turbine projects, particularly for environmental assessments done under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To date, their examination of the scientific literature on wind turbine noise and health is that the only health effect conclusively demonstrated from exposure to wind turbine noise is an increase in self-reported general annoyance and complaints (i.e., headaches, nausea, tinnitus, vertigo) [48] .

In conclusion, there are almost 6000 files of complaints recorded in an Ontario government Freedom of Information (FOI) request [43] . It is proposed that there is sufficient evidence that the Ontario setbacks and noise guidelines are not working as expected. Health Canada acknowledges complaints are a health effect [47] , and that this is “conclusively demonstrated” [48] .

It is recommended that Ontario authorities respond quickly by acknowledging that WPPs are being sited too close to neighbours and the noise levels are too high. Those neighbours who are reporting AHEs should be provided with remedy to their satisfaction, and that their living conditions be restored.