summer 2001 - borden ladner...
Post on 05-Feb-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
S U M M E R 2 0 0 1
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
LA
W N
EW
SA D M I N I S T R AT I V E I M PAC T S O N C O S T R E CO V E R Y
William K. McNaughton (Vancouver)
A patchwork of provisions and approaches across Canada applies to the
recovery of remediation costs. Statutory causes of action now exist in some
provinces, notably British Columbia and Ontario. Common law and civil
code causes of action can be pursued in the remaining provinces. The
statutory causes of action, being relatively new, are just beginning to be
tested and commented on by the courts. Two recent court decisions of note
have required the plaintiff exhaust administrative options before the
statutory cost recovery provision can be engaged.
S T AT U T O R Y A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I V E P R O C E D U R E S
The Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act does not provide a
cause of action for the recovery of costs at contaminated sites. It does
provide (s. 207) that where a person is convicted, another person who
suffers loss has a cause of action to recover the losses they have suffered.
There is an administrative provision (s. 114(4)(b)) that allows for the
apportionment of the costs of carrying out the work required to comply
with an environmental protection order. However, cost recovery for a
contaminated site from those who have caused the problem is usually,
unless there is an order or a conviction, based on common law contract
and tort claims.
In British Columbia, the Waste Management Act grants a general cause of
action against responsible persons (s. 27) to any person who incurs
remediation costs at a contaminated site. The section even makes liability
for those remediation costs absolute, retroactive and joint and several. A
number of administrative procedures are also provided including cleanup
orders that can allocate costs, non-binding allocation panels to determine
the degree of responsibility, a request for minor contributor status or a
voluntary assumption of some responsibility which then caps your respon-
sibility to others.
In Ontario, the Environmental Protection Act grants a statutory cause of
action (s. 99) where a person has suffered loss or damage as a direct result
of the spill of a pollutant that causes, or is likely to cause, an adverse effect.
I N T H I S I S S U E
1
Administrative Impacts on
Cost Recovery
4
Case Digests
6
Legislative Digests and
Policy Initiatives
1 1
Firm Notes
S U M M E R 2 0 0 12
“Rec
ent
deci
sion
s in
Brit
ish
Col
umbi
a su
gges
t se
ekin
g re
cove
ry o
f cos
ts f
rom
oth
er p
oten
tially
resp
onsi
ble
pers
ons
(RPs
) fir
st r
equi
res
that
adm
inis
trat
ive
proc
edur
es b
e ex
haus
ted”
.
Recovery can be sought in an action against the owner, and the
person having control, of the pollutant. Liability is based on the
degree of contribution. There is also a statutory cause of action in the
Environmental Bill of Rights (s. 84) but this requires the plaintiff
establish a defendant has contravened an environmental law, or will
imminently contravene a law, and caused significant harm to a public
resource. Many administrative procedures exist for making determi-
nations, issuing orders and granting rights of appeal to the Environ-
mental Review Tribunal.
The situation in Québec is currently evolving. Presently, actions to
enforce private rights are based on the Québec Civil Code. Recovery
of cleanup costs after remediating contamination is uncertain.
Contamination is not necessarily considered as a damage per se and
the contamination must cause prejudice to entail liability. The
burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish fault, damage and a
causal link between the fault and the damage. The Québec Minister
of the Environment is considering the enactment of new legislation
which would grant the Minister the statutory power to order a person
responsible for soil contamination to prepare and implement a
remediation plan. The new legislation is expected to be presented to
the National Assembly in the fall.
R E C E N T C O U R T D E C I S I O N S
Recent decisions in British Columbia suggest seeking recovery of costs
from other potentially responsible persons (RPs) first requires that
administrative procedures be exhausted.
Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd., an August 24, 2000 decision of the
B.C. Supreme Court (“Swamy No. 1”), held that parties seeking to
recover costs for remediation must exhaust the administrative
procedures set out in the contaminated sites provisions of the Waste
Management Act before going to court to recover costs under the cost
recovery provision. The Court stated the claim could be pursued after
appropriate findings by Ministry administrators, but that the question
of liability for remedying contamination must be addressed to the
administrative bodies designed to deal with it, namely the Waste
Management Branch and the Environmental Appeal Board.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L3
O’Connor v. Fleck, another B.C. Supreme Court case decided less than one month before Swamy No. 1,
held that parties could proceed with independent remediation and then go to court for a determination
that a site was a contaminated site, to determine who are the RPs and to allocate remediation costs. In
other words, it was not necessary to first exhaust the Ministry procedures (site determination, designation
of RPs, minor contributor status, allocation panels, appeals to the Environmental Appeal Board, etc.)
before seeking recovery under the statutory cause of action. We reported on Swamy No. 1 and the
O’Connor case in the Fall 2000 edition of the Law News.
On April 11, 2001 a second decision in the Swamy case (“Swamy No. 2”) reaffirmed Swamy No. 1 and
again indicated that the correct characterization of the Waste Management Act requires a party to exhaust
the administrative process. The Court distinguished the O’Connor decision on the basis that it did not
address the issue of jurisdiction to determine site contamination and responsible persons and therefore
was not binding. The Court made it clear that remediation costs must be incurred before the cost
recovery action is commenced as you are not able to pursue a judgment or declaration for future costs.
Swamy No. 2 also specifically addressed the requirement to strictly follow procedural notice requirements
on administrative requests. The Court’s concern was that anyone who may be an RP must be given notice
of the Ministry’s determination procedure and have the chance to participate fully, including the opportu-
nity to appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board should a ruling be issued with which they do not agree,
in order to be bound by the decision. This aspect of the decision indicates that failure to follow natural
justice requirements in the administrative realm may result in your cost recovery action being dismissed
or delayed when you attempt to rely on the administrative results (the order, the determination, the
finding of adverse effect, etc.) as a foundation for your claim.
P R O C E E D W I T H C A U T I O N
Swamy No. 1 has been appealed but the appeal has not proceeded. Swamy No. 2 has not been appealed.
Presently, persons dealing with contaminated sites in British Columbia must deal with the law as set out
in the Swamy decisions.
It is unclear, however, if the Swamy decisions will stand up in British Columbia courts. Much comment
has been directed to the Ministry suggesting that reform is necessary. These decisions will hinder not
promote cleanups. They result in parties potentially having to go through two sets of processes, one
administrative and one in the courts, to recover their costs. An appeal court decision, or legislative
change, will be necessary before there is any certainty in this area.
With a patchwork of cost recovery procedures across the country, the lesson from the British Columbia
decisions is to ensure that any necessary administrative procedures are followed, and natural justice
requirements such as notice are given even if not a requirement of the administrative procedure, in order
that your cost recovery action will not be adversely affected.
S U M M E R 2 0 0 14
“An
Am
eric
an w
aste
man
agem
ent
com
pany
ope
ratin
g in
Mex
ico
was
rec
ently
aw
arde
d co
mpe
nsat
ion
from
the
Mex
ican
gov
ernm
ent
unde
r [N
AFTA
] in
vest
or p
rote
ctio
n pr
ovis
ions
.”
C A S E D I G E S TS
P E S T I C I D E B Y - L AW U P H E L D
The Supreme Court of Canada has reaffirmed
the importance of “environmental protection...
as a fundamental value in Canadian society” in
114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage)
v. Hudson (Town) (June 28, 2001). The Town of
Hudson, Québec, had enacted a by-law that had
the effect of prohibiting the use of pesticides for
aesthetic purposes. Spraytech challenged the
by-law on the basis of administrative law
principles, namely that it was not within the
municipality’s power to restrict the use of
pesticides.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the by-
law under the municipal statute that granted it
the general power to make by-laws to protect
health. This power is common to the municipal
statutes in many provinces. The Court held that
the by-law was effective even though the
aesthetic use of pesticides is permitted by both
the federal and provincial statutes regulating
pesticides.
A noteworthy component of the case was the
reference in the majority decision to the
precautionary principle:
The interpretation of [the by-law] contained
in these reasons respects international law’s
“precautionary principle”,:... “Environmen-
tal measures must anticipate, prevent and
attack the causes of environmental degrada-
tion. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environ-
mental degradation.”
The minority decision, in dismissing international
law as irrelevant to the administrative law questions
posed by this case, appears to only have highlighted
the importance of the majority’s application of the
precautionary principle.
M E TA L C L A D A WA R D A P P E A L E D
An American waste management company operating
in Mexico was recently awarded compensation from
the Mexican government under the investor protec-
tion provisions of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (“NAFTA”). In United Mexican States v.
Metalclad Corporation (May 2, 2001) the British
Columbia Supreme Court heard an appeal from an
arbitration tribunal constituted under NAFTA
Persons against whom cost recovery is being sought will want to consider how best to utilize these deci-
sions to their advantage. Persons seeking to recover costs from others will want to consider how to deal
with these decisions in order that a cost recovery action will be able to proceed.
We recommend, in either case, that you seek legal advice concerning the remediation at your site. The
appropriate advice is specific to the individual circumstances, including the degree to which you have
advanced the remediation and any attempts at cost recovery or to involve other potential RPs. The BLG
offices across the country would be pleased to assist you.
E N V I R O N M E N T A L5
Chapter 11. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s
key findings in favour of Metalclad, but upheld
alternative grounds for awarding compensation
under the treaty’s expropriation provisions.
Metalclad had constructed and attempted to
operate a hazardous waste landfill in
Guadalcazar, Mexico. The company asserted that
the Mexican government had provided all
necessary permits to construct and operate the
landfill, and that no municipal permit was
required. The landfill was opposed by the
municipality of Guadalcazar, however, which
refused Metalclad’s subsequent application for a
construction permit. Metalclad went ahead and
constructed the landfill. Legal proceedings
ensued in Mexico between Metalclad and the
municipality and between the municipality and
the Mexican government.
After the NAFTA arbitration proceeding was
underway but before the hearing was held, the
local Mexican Governor issued an Ecological
Decree creating an ecological preserve over a
large tract of land which included the landfill.
Metalclad sought relief under NAFTA Chapter 11,
claiming that Mexico had (1) failed to provide
fair and equitable treatment to it as an investor,
contrary to NAFTA Article 1105 and (2) expropri-
ated its investment without compensation,
contrary to NAFTA Article 1110.
With respect to the award under the fair and
equitable treatment provisions, the Court held
that the Tribunal made decisions on matters
beyond the scope of Chapter 11 by importing
considerations of transparency into Article 1105.
To the extent that it was based on Article 1105,
the award was set aside.
The Court went on, however, to uphold the
Tribunal’s alternative finding that the Ecological
Decree was tantamount to an expropriation of
Metalclad’s investment, within the meaning of
Article 1110, and granted Metalclad compensa-
tion for the loss of its investment.
Patrick Foy Q.C. and Robert Deane of BLG’s
Vancouver office along with Chris Thomas of
Thomas & Partners were counsel for Mexico on
the appeal.
L I M I TAT I O N P E R I O D E X T E N D E D
B Y C O M P A N Y ’ S D E C I S I O N T O
R E M E D I AT E L E A S E D P R O P E R T Y
A recent case highlights the importance of
carefully worded correspondence between
potential litigants. In Low v. Petro-Canada Inc.
(February 14, 2001) the British Columbia
Supreme Court refused Petro-Canada’s motion to
dismiss an action brought against the company
by the plaintiff landowner. Petro-Canada had
argued that the action was statute barred. Low
was able to rely upon correspondence in which
Petro-Canada had admitted liability in order to
fall within the statutory limitation period.
Low took possession of land from Petro-Canada.
The parties engaged in negotiations about the
remediation of the lands, contaminated by Petro-
Canada during its occupancy. In letters sent by
Petro-Canada to Low, the company explained
that it would dispose of and replace soils to
above residential standards as part of any
redevelopment of the site.
S U M M E R 2 0 0 16
The Court found that Petro-Canada had
confirmed the cause of action within the
meaning of section 5 of the B.C. Limitation Act.
Under that provision, if an action is confirmed
before the expiration of the applicable limita-
tion period, the limitation period begins from
the time of the confirmation. The Court
determined that a reasonable person receiving
the letters and reading them in the context of
what had passed between the parties would
conclude that the company had admitted
liability for remediation to a residential stan-
dard throughout the entire property, as well as
for the costs of remediation and statutory
compliance.
Finally, although it did not have to make a
finding on this issue, the court strongly sug-
gested that the appropriate limitation period in
British Columbia for recovery of remediation
costs is two years.
T I R E R E C Y C L I N G S C H E M E
S C R A P P E D
The British Columbia Supreme Court has struck
down the province’s scrap tire recycling program
(the “FIRST Program”) for being implemented
and administered unlawfully. In Valley Rubber
Resources Inc. v. British Columbia (March 30,
2001) the Court held that in creating a compre-
hensive regulatory scheme without direct
Cabinet approval, the Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks acted beyond its statutory
authority under the Waste Management Act. The
government is appealing and the decision has
been stayed pending the appeal.
In 1991 the Ministry established the FIRST Program -
a highly successful regulatory scheme for recycling
scrap tires. The provincial Cabinet approved a
proposal for the scheme in February 1991 and
detailed scrap tire regulations under the Waste
Management Act were drafted but never imple-
mented. Under the scheme, a subsidy paid to
registered processors allowed them to pay transport-
ers of scrap tires economically viable rates. The
effect of not participating in the FIRST Program was
that a processor’s ability to compete in the market-
place would be seriously impeded.
The Court held that the FIRST Program, in effectively
regulating the entire scrap tire industry, must be
established by legislation or regulation and could
not be solely a construct of the Ministry.
L E G I S L AT I V E D I G E S TS A N DP O L I C Y I N I T I AT I V E S
F E D E R A L D E V E L O P M E N T S
N E W S O I L A N D A I R C C M E
S T A N D A R D S
In January, 1998 the federal government and all the
provinces (except Québec) signed the Canada-Wide
Accord on Environmental Harmonization. Within the
framework of the Accord is an Environmental
Standard Sub-agreement. This Sub-agreement, like
the Accord, does not change the legislative authority
of either the federal or provincial governments.
To date, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment (“CCME”) has established the follow-
ing as priorities for standard setting:
• Benzene: Phase 1 of the CCME benzene standard
called for a 30% reduction in air emissions of
benzene by the year 2000 and included such
“Onc
e a
stan
dard
is s
et b
y th
e C
CM
E, t
here
may
be
oppo
rtun
ities
to in
fluen
ce it
s im
plem
enta
tion.
”
E N V I R O N M E N T A L7
measures as lowered limits of benzene in
gasoline. Phase 2 of the plan to reduce
benzene emissions is currently under
development. It is unclear whether Phase 2
will include development of an ambient
standard or will simply consist of a reduction
target.
• Dioxins and Furans: The first CCME
standard for air emissions of dioxins will
apply to British Columbia coastal pulp and
paper facilities that burn salt-laden wood fuel
in their boilers. Emission limits for existing
boilers are to be achieved by 2006.
• Mercury: A number of CCME standards for
mercury have been or are in the process of
being developed, including mercury air
emission limits for electric power generation
facilities.
• Particulate Matter and Ground-Level Ozone:
We reported on the CCME standards for
particulate matter (“PM”) and ozone in the
Fall 2000 edition of the Law News. The PM
and ozone standards are being use by
provincial authorities to assess the
environmental and health effects of projects
which produce air emissions, such as power
plants.
• Petroleum Hydrocarbons: These CCME
standards apply to petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination in soil, excluding BTEX.
Provincial governments have two years to
review and revise existing standards to ensure
equal or better protection.
To date, the CCME has emphasized ambient
standards rather than discharge or emission
limits. Each province has flexibility to choose
the measures by which the CCME standards may
be attained. For example, in implementing the
CCME standards provincial governments may
choose their existing legal authorities or create
new ones, or utilize voluntary programs, codes of
practice or guidelines. Each CCME standard
includes a timeframe to achieve the standard.
Once a standard is set by the CCME, there may
be opportunities to influence its implementa-
tion. For example, the CCME petroleum hydro-
carbons in soil standard is currently being
reviewed in British Columbia to determine
whether the standards contained in the B.C.
Contaminated Sites Regulation should be
changed.
C E A A A M E N D M E N T S
Bill C-19, an Act to Amendment the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act, was introduced on
March 20, 2001. Bill C-19 is designed, in part, to
streamline the federal environmental assessment
process by (1) eliminating the possibility of a
project being referred to a review panel after it
has already undergone a detailed examination
through a comprehensive study-level assessment,
and (2) increasing the opportunities for using a
class screening report in relation to projects
considered to be routine with known environ-
mental effects.
However, other changes may be problematic for
project proponents. Bill C-19 considers broad-
ening participant funding. Currently, the
S U M M E R 2 0 0 18
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires
the federal Minister of Environment to establish
a participant funding program to facilitate
public participation in panel reviews. Bill C-19
expands this program by making the funding
available for comprehensive studies and joint
panel reviews as well.
Bill C-19 was referred to the Committee of
Environment and Sustainable Development
prior to Parliament’s Summer recess on June 22,
2001. Clause by clause analysis of Bill C-19 is
expected to resume with Parliament’s return on
September 17, 2001.
C E P A U P D AT E : P A R T I C U L AT E
M A T T E R ( P M 10 )
By Order dated April 26, 2001, respirable
particulate matter less than or equal to 10
microns (PM 10) has been added to the list of
Toxic Substances forming Schedule 1 to the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. As
reported in the Fall 2000 edition of the Law
News, the listing of PM 10 may be seen as a
precursor to future regulation.
A L B E R TA
E N E R G Y A N D U T I L I T I E S B O A R D
A P P R O V E S A D D I T I O N A L U N I T AT
R O S S D A L E P O W E R P L A N T
On May 8, 2001 the Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board (“EUB”) approved the application of
EPCOR Power Development Corp. and EPCOR
Generation Inc. to construct and operate the
proposed Rossdale Unit 11 natural gas-fired
combined cycle generating unit at EPCOR’s
existing Rossdale Power Plant Site in
Edmonton’s downtown river valley. The project
consists of a new 170 MW gas turbine generating
unit and a new heat recovery steam generator
which will provide steam to an existing 71 MW
steam powered generating unit.
The EUB’s Decision follows more than five weeks of
public hearings covering numerous environmental,
social and economic issues. Topics addressed at
length during the hearings included air quality and
human health, noise emissions, cooling water
discharge to the North Saskatchewan River, ground
level fogging and icing, visible vapour plume
emissions from the plant, potential impacts on
residents in communities immediately adjacent to
the plant site, historical aboriginal use of the area,
historical resources, adjacent burial grounds,
historically significant buildings located on the site,
site landscaping and the potential impacts of the
project on adjacent residential property values.
BLG’s Calgary office represented EPCOR in all
aspects of the regulatory approval process for this
project.
B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A
N E W D R I N K I N G W AT E R
P R OT E C T I O N A C T
Shortly before the May 2001 provincial election,
the New Democrats enacted far-reaching legislation
to regulate British Columbia’s drinking water. The
Act will impact local governments and other water
suppliers, water well drillers and industries whose
activities potentially affect water quality.
The Act prohibits contamination of drinking water
sources. Community-based drinking water officers
will be responsible for drinking water issues in each
“Wat
er s
uppl
iers
will
be
requ
ired
to m
onito
r dr
inki
ng w
ater
sou
rces
, dev
elop
res
pons
e
plan
s in
rel
atio
n to
iden
tifie
d th
reat
s to
drin
king
wat
er a
nd t
o m
ake
publ
ic t
he r
esul
ts
of w
ater
qua
lity
mon
itorin
g an
d em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
pla
ns.”
E N V I R O N M E N T A L9
health region of British Columbia. These officers
will have the authority to issue hazard abatement
or prevention orders in the event of an immedi-
ate significant risk of a health hazard. Any
person may request an investigation by a drink-
ing water officer if that person considers there to
be a threat to drinking water. The drinking water
officer must review the request, consider whether
an investigation is warranted and follow up with
the person making the request.
The new Act provides for certification of water
suppliers through the issuance of operating
permits. Operator qualification standards may
vary depending on the type of water system and
number of connections. (In British Columbia,
most water suppliers are local governments.
Privately-owned water utilities largely operate in
rural areas). Water suppliers will be required to
monitor drinking water sources, develop re-
sponse plans in relation to identified threats to
drinking water and to make public the results of
water quality monitoring and emergency re-
sponse plans. In addition, they must immedi-
ately report threats to drinking water.
The Act also amends the Water Act to regulate
aspects of groundwater and aquifer use for the
first time. Well drillers and pump installers must
hold certificates of qualification, and mandatory
performance and design standards for drilling,
construction, closure and flood-proofing of wells
will be established by regulation. Finally, the Act
provides that local governments, medical health
officers and drinking water officers are to be
consulted on statutory decisions impacting water
quality, such as the issuance of waste manage-
ment, mining or range permits or the approval of
logging plans.
The new Liberal provincial government is on
record as supporting the general thrust of the Act.
S U S TA I N A B I L I T Y C O M M I S S I O N E R
O F F I C E C R E AT E D
In the final days of British Columbia’s New
Democrat government, legislation creating the
office of Commissioner for Environment and
Sustainability was enacted. The Commissioner is
to report annually on government’s progress
towards sustainability and every two years on the
state of British Columbia’s ecological health.
Any resident of British Columbia may make a
written submission to the Commission on
matters related to sustainability. The Commis-
sioner must forward all submissions received to
the relevant Ministry or government organization
and may make recommendations regarding the
submission.
In addition, the legislation requires that govern-
ment take into account sustainability objectives
in its planning process.
T W O N E W M I N I S T R I E S T O S H A R E
E N V I R O N M E N TA L
R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S
On June 6, 2001 the new Liberal government of
British Columbia unveiled its structure for
government. The responsibilities of the former
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will
be divided between two new ministries - the
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
S U M M E R 2 0 0 11 0
(“MSRM”) and the Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection (“MWLAP”).
MSRM will have responsibility for land use
planning, provincially owned land and water
allocation tenures, environmental assessments
and resource information services. MSRM’s
objectives include streamlining land use
planning and increasing access to provincially
owned lands and resources. MWLAP will be the
central agency for environmental protection,
including environmental regulation and permit
setting, contaminated sites management, fresh
water fish and wildlife administration, and
compliance and enforcement.
O N TA R I O
B R OW N F I E L D S L E G I S L AT I O N
On May 17, 2001 the Ontario legislature
introduced the Brownfields Statute Law
Amendment Act, 2001. If enacted in its present
form, the Act will amend a number of environ-
mental protection statutes with a view to
clarifying rules for the assessment and cleanup
of contaminated sites, and providing planning
and financing tools to encourage the redevelop-
ment of contaminated properties.
The rules with respect to assessment and
cleanup of contaminated sites include enabling
regulations to provide standards for contami-
nants based on proposed land use. At the
present time, Ontario does not have regulated
standards for site cleanup. Rather, land owners
and government agencies rely upon the applica-
tion of cleanup “guidelines” which do not have“At
the
pres
ent
time,
Ont
ario
doe
s no
t ha
ve r
egul
ated
sta
ndar
ds fo
r si
te c
lean
up.
Rat
her,
land
ow
ners
and
gov
ernm
ent
agen
cies
rel
y up
on t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
cle
anup
“gui
delin
es”
whi
ch d
o no
t ha
ve t
he f
orce
of
law
.”the force of law. The new legislation also proposes
protection from future environmental orders for
the following classes of persons:
• Secured creditors while taking specified actions
in relation to secured property.
• Receivers and trustees in bankruptcy except in
cases of gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
• Persons conducting an investigation of a
property.
• Owners who follow prescribed site assessment
and cleanup processes.
The proposed legislation also provides for the
development of a new environmental site registry
for records of site condition which must be filed for
an owner to receive immunity from environmental
orders.
A number of planning and financing tools designed
to assist municipalities in encouraging the redevel-
opment of contaminated sites would also be
provided. These tools include increased flexibility
in the provision of municipal grants and loans to
assist brownfields redevelopment and, in particular,
provisions enabling municipalities to grant munici-
pal and education tax relief to parties intending to
remediate brownfields properties.
O N TA R I O M OV E S T O P R O T E C T O A K
R I D G E S M O R A I N E
Following a surprise public announcement the
Ontario legislature passed Bill 55, An act to protect
the Oak Ridges Moraine, on May 17, 2001. The Act
places a six month moratorium on land use
approvals respecting development on the Oak
E N V I R O N M E N T A L1 1
F I R M N OT E S
Mary Jo Campbell (604) 640-4105, “Environmental Risk Management - Property Transfers and Contami-
nated Sites”, Development Issues Symposium of The National Association of Industrial and Office
Prperties, Vancouver Chapter, June 14, 2001
Christine Duchaine (514) 954-2529, “________________”, Environmental Compliance Programs
Conference Federated Press Montréal, March 23, 2001
Christine Duchaine (514) 954-2529, “________________”, Contaminated Soil Update, ______, April 26,
2001
Craig Godsoe (604) 640-4049, “British Columbia Environmental Law, Regulation and Policy”, Presenta-
tion and paper for the Educational Program Innovations Centre (EPIC) Course, Vancouver, April 23, 2001
William K. McNaughton (604) 640-4120, “Limitation Issues in Dealing with Contaminated Sites”,
Canadian Bar Association, Environmental Law Section (Vancouver), November 30, 2000
William K. McNaughton (604) 640-4120, “Beware of the skeleton in your subsidiary’s closet”, The
Lawyers Weekly, January 5, 2001
William K. McNaughton (604) 640-4120, “Conducting a Cost Recovery Action”, Environmental Law
2001, inSIGHT Conference, Vancouver, May 1, 2001
Ridges Moraine, a sensitive geological formation
which stretches approximately 160 kilometres
from the Trent River to the Niagara Escarpment.
The Moraine crosses thirty-four municipalities in
three regions and four counties and contains the
largest concentration of headwater streams in the
Greater Toronto Area. The intent of the legisla-
tion is to stop further development of the
Moraine pending a period of consultation by the
Ontario government on the need for more
stringent protection.
Q U É B E C
B I L L 1 5 6 O N H O L D
In the Spring 2001 edition of the Law News the
main article discussed Québec’s Bill 156 which
proposed amendments to the Environment
Quality Act in connection with soil remediation.
Bill 156 was not reintroduced at the most recent
session of the Québec National Assembly. An
amended draft of the Bill is currently being
circulated for comments. It is expected that a
revised version of the legislation will be intro-
duced in the Fall.
S P R I N G 2 0 0 1
The Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Environmental Law News is
necessarily of a general nature and cannot be regarded as legal
advice. The firm would be pleased to provide additional
details and to discuss the possible effects of these matters in
specific situations.
Our Environmental group is chaired by:
G. Ross Switzer (Vancouver)
(604) 640-4150
Our environmental group regional contacts are :
Calgary Montréal
Jonathan Liteplo Christine Duchaine
(403) 232-9653 (514) 954-2529
Ottawa Vancouver
Peter Doody William K. McNaughton
(613) 787-3510 (604) 640-4120
Toronto
F.F. (Rick) Coburn
(416) 367-6038
To obtain additional copies of the Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Environmental Law News or to change your mailing address,
please contact the editor. Or, visit our website at
www.blgcanada.com where you can view the Environmental
Law News or other Borden Ladner Gervais LLP publications.
E D I TO R
Jonty Bogardus
tel: (604) 640-4227
email: jbogardus@blgcanada.com
top related