Stumbled across this is an article entitled "Wind turbine syndrome: farm hosts tell very different story":
In a 2012 Ontario legal case, complainants were asked to provide their medical records going back a decade before the local wind farm commenced operation. This would have provided relevant information about any pre-existing health problems. When they failed to so, their case failed.
I hadn't previously heard of this appeal (one of Eric Gillespie's cases), so I contacted author Simon Chapman and he was able to steer me towards some of the relevant documents. In particular:
For instance, in an earlier REA appeal, Zephyr Farms, the Tribunal granted motions by the Director and the approval holder requiring the production of (i) the complete medical records of the appellant’s proposed witnesses who claimed serious health effects due to proximity to wind turbines and (ii) all real estate records of those witnesses who alleged that they were forced to sell or abandon their homes.38 The Tribunal denied the appellant’s request for a lengthy adjournment to gather the complete medical records for each witness, given the public interest in a fair and timely resolution of the appeal. The appellant knew of the time constraints on REA appeals when it filed its Notice of Appeal in November 2011 and it had provided no explanation to the Tribunal for its inability to obtain a single medical record for any of the witnesses it proposed to call.39 After the Tribunal’s ruling regarding medical evidence and required disclosures, the appellant in Zephyr Farms withdrew its appeal.
In other words, the appellants claimed turbines had made people sick but refused to offer proof. What is really odd, though is that the Environmental Review Tribunal has been inconsistent in demanding "medical disclosure". You'd think that if you were trying to stop a development on the basis that it might harm people's health, you wold have to at least show evidence that other, similar developments had in fact harmed people's health.