The applicant purchased a contaminated property from the respondent.
The agreement of purchase and sale required the respondent to remediate the property to specific Ministry of Environment standards using in situ injections.
After several unsuccessful injection attempts, the respondent's experts proposed a Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) instead of further injections or excavation.
The applicant sought specific performance of the remediation or funds to complete it, while the respondent sought a declaration that an SSRA satisfied its obligations.
The court found insufficient evidence regarding current contamination levels, the feasibility of excavation, and the impact of an SSRA on property value, and ordered the parties to obtain further expert evidence using trust funds before making a final determination.
