Ontario Families Who Lost to Wind Turbine Companies in Court May Owe $340,000, Which Blows

Four families from rural southwestern Ontario are wondering if they'll have to sell their farms and homes to pay the huge legal bills of the wind turbine companies they took to court in efforts to stop construction of the giant electricity generators.

Three companies are demanding almost $340,000 in total from the families, who challenged the construction of three different wind projects in Huron County, around an hour's drive north of London, Ont. The families lost their case, heard last fall in divisional court, and are seeking to appeal the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

"In the end, we may have to sell the land that we're fighting to preserve," says corn and soybean farmer Shawn Drennan, whose family has owned their farm near Seaforth, ON for almost a century. "We'll try and go back to the bank to borrow first, but we're not rich," he says from his home.

Court documents filed by the families' lawyer, Julian Falconer of Toronto, say that by simply exercising their right to use the courts, they now face the "disheartening prospect of financial ruin." The documents state the most recent financial statements available to the public from Veresen (St. Columban Energy) show assets of over $3 billion, Pattern Energy Group (Armow Wind Ontario Inc.) over $2 billion, and Capital LP (K2 Wind Ontario Inc.) of over $5 billion.

"It is both punitive and prohibitive" for the companies to seek such large amounts from "farming families of average financial means," the documents claim.

According to Drennan, the families hope to argue that their case is in the public interest, so they shouldn't have to pay the companies' expenses. In the court hearing last November, the wind opponents had three lawyers as opposed to at least 15 lawyers from the provincial government and the companies. "If that doesn't scream 'this is public interest,' I don't know what does," he says.

K2, builders of a nearly-completed wind farm near Goderich on the Lake Huron shore, claim in the court documents that the families represent "only one element of the public interest," and that there is a "strong public interest" in renewable energy such as wind power. The company says the Drennans were warned they would be held responsible for legal expenses before the four-day London hearing, and that they have "political motivation" for their opposition.

While she knew the companies might go after her family, Jennifer Dixon of Huron East says the cost recovery attempt is "a bullying tactic," designed to deter the families and their supporting community groups from appealing the court decision at a higher level.

Dixon's eight-year-old daughter is highly sensitive to noise, and has had headaches her mother claims were caused by vibrations from the erection of a turbine less than 550 metres from her bedroom. She fears the girl will suffer continuously from the infrasound—inaudible low-frequency sound waves—when the giant windmills are up and running.

A major Health Canada study found no link between wind turbine noise and negative health in people.

Some of the Dixons' supporters believe the courts won't force the families to pay. "All we can do is have faith in the justice system. How could any ordinary person bring any case forward if they know they face a threat of being completely broken like this," asks Gerry Ryan, a member of the community group Huron East Against Turbines (HEAT) that sides with the family. He says a judge in an earlier court hearing said their case is not frivolous and needs to be heard.

In general, the losing side of a civil case pays for the winning side's legal expenses. In this case, the owners of the St. Columban site, near the Dixons' home, also claim they have suffered financial damage from the project being delayed a full year by the opponents' legal moves.

The company says the families are not acting in the public interest, but "they simply don't want the project to be built near their homes," and are concerned about private money matters such as the value of livestock and other property.

While the Dixons and the Drennans watch the wind farms reaching completion and brace for the future, they enter a waiting game: waiting to see if they'll be allowed to ask another court to keep the blades from whirling, waiting to see what they may experience if the windmills are allowed to start up, and also waiting to see if the justice system will make them pay the legal bills for the companies that are bringing such changes to their rural landscape.

Follow Colin Graf on Twitter.