The Ministry of the Environment has ordered a wealthy multinational corporation to clean up pollution migrating from its factory property into neighboring farm wells and into the well that provides water for the town of Arimle. The order was issued under s. 18 of theEnvironmental Protection Act. The corporation challenges the order before the province's Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT).

The ERT hearing is scheduled to last several months and involves complex legal,procedural and evidence issues. This makes professional legal representation a necessity. A party will likely be unable to present their case effectively and fully without it.To this end, the Ministry and the corporation are each represented by several experienced lawyers and both call several expert witnesses.

Further, some residents of the town where the factory is located and of the surrounding farmland form a group called Preserve Our Water (POW), and the tribunal grants them status as parties to the proceeding. POW has raised several thousand dollars to paytheir lawyers, but after several weeks of hearings the funds are depleted. Unless the ERT pays for (publicly funds)their lawyers, the POWwill have torepresent themselvesfor the remainder of the hearing or evenwithdraw from it entirely.

ERT refuses to payfor/publicly fund POW's legal representation.ERT explains that its' enabling legislation - theEnvironmental Protection Act -lacks provisions for this kind of public funding.

In contrast,Ontario'sLegal Aid Services Actprovides free legal representation to individuals chargedwith criminal offences. It also provides free legal representation to individuals who are parties to family law child custody and access disputes and who are subject to serious immigration consequences, such as deportation.

POW asks the ERT to rule that the lack of provisions inEnvironmental Protection Actforfree legal representationviolates the Charter. It asks the ERT to rectify these omissions by providing funding itself or by ordering the Ministry to provide funding for POW's lawyers.

ERT's enabling legislation expressly states that the tribunal has the authority to adjudicate onquestions of law.ERT's enabling legislationdoes notsay that ERT lacks authority to adjudicateCharter-related issues.

Based scenario in Question 1, does the ERT have jurisdiction to adjudicate theCharterissues and provide a remedy under s 24(1)of the Charter? Explain.(7.5 MARKS)