Thomas Guoth

Evergreen Community (Burlington) Ltd. brought a motion seeking an interim or interlocutory injunction against FirstCanada ULC to prevent alleged ongoing environmental contamination (LNAPL) from FirstCanada's property onto Evergreen's, and an order for inspection under Rule 32 to conduct groundwater and soil testing.

Evergreen argued the contamination stalled its billion-dollar development project.

The court dismissed both requests, finding that the injunction sought was mandatory and Evergreen failed to meet the strict 'strong prima facie case' test, particularly regarding irreparable harm and the ongoing nature of contamination.

The court preferred FirstCanada's expert evidence that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) or Risk Assessment could be obtained despite existing contamination.

The order for inspection was denied due to procedural unfairness and lack of demonstrated necessity for the upcoming summary judgment motion.

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The appellant challenged the award of disturbance damages for pre-expropriation business losses and the Board's refusal to reduce the property's market value due to environmental contaminants.

The respondents cross-appealed the Board's refusal to award interest on the disturbance damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the law regarding disturbance damages and reasonably concluded that the environmental contaminants did not reduce the property's market value.

The Court also upheld the refusal to award interest on disturbance damages, as it is not provided for in the Act.

The appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error in the business loss calculation.