Alessia Petricon-Westwood

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations regarding environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the contamination upon purchase, the limitation period had expired, and the claim lacked sufficient particulars for negligence, strict liability, and statutory claims under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were not barred by delay or pleading over, the plaintiffs' knowledge of contamination was not fatal, the limitation period issue required evidence, and the claim provided sufficient particulars for all causes of action, including novel applications of strict liability.

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations against multiple defendants, including Akzo Nobel N.V. (NV), for environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue, Toronto.

NV, a Netherlands corporation, moved under Rule 21.01(3)(a) to dismiss the action against it for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish any presumptive connecting factors (domicile, carrying on business, tort committed, or contract made in Ontario) linking NV to the province.

The court rejected the group enterprise theory and the argument that assuming liabilities or providing indemnities constituted carrying on business in Ontario for jurisdictional purposes.

Consequently, the claim against Akzo Nobel N.V. was stayed/dismissed.