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