The plaintiff property owner alleged that petroleum hydrocarbon contamination migrated from the defendants’ neighbouring industrial site onto its property and sought damages under the Environmental Protection Act, as well as in nuisance, negligence, and punitive damages.
The court accepted expert evidence that contaminants from the defendants’ property migrated onto the plaintiff’s land, but held the plaintiff failed to prove compensable loss or damage.
Because the Ministry of the Environment had already issued an order requiring remediation, the court found that awarding remediation costs would risk double recovery under s. 99 of the Environmental Protection Act.
The plaintiff also failed to prove actual, substantial physical damage, loss of use, or diminution in value of the property necessary to sustain nuisance or negligence claims.
All claims were therefore dismissed.
