问题的焦点现在是，是否满足：
there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person, having regard to the relevant law and to any government policies developed to guide decisions of that kind, could have made the decision;
ERT 的判决使用了这样的观点，环境局的工程师是专业人员，ERT 更看重他们的意见。
那么，环境局的根据是什么呢？他们的根据是沥青厂聘请的一家公司的两份技术报告，一个是噪音评估，另外一个是排放模型报告。两份报告的结论都是基于模型计算的结果。结果就是污染排放符合环境局的要求。
安省环保法第14节：
14 (1) Subject to subsection (2) but despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations,
a person shall not discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect. 2005, c. 12, s. 1 (5).
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to,
(a) a discharge that is authorized under this Act or the
Ontario Water Resources Act, if the discharge does not cause and is not likely to cause an adverse effect; or
(b) a discharge of a contaminant that arises when animal wastes are disposed of in accordance with normal farming practices, if the only adverse effect that is caused or that may be caused by the discharge is an adverse effect referred to in clause (a) of the definition of “adverse effect” in subsection 1 (1). 2005, c. 12, s. 1 (5).
而
“adverse effect” means one or more of,
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business; (“conséquence préjudiciable”)
所以符合环境局的要求应该理解为不造成或不可能造成不利影响。
