Harry J. Dahme

The plaintiff appealed a master's decision dismissing its motion under Rule 32.01 for intrusive testing on the defendant's adjacent property to investigate environmental contamination.

The master found that the proposed testing would not be probative because the plaintiff's construction had already altered the soil and groundwater conditions, and that the prejudice to the defendant outweighed any benefit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the master's exercise of discretion.

The appellant, owner of a commercial property in Windsor, Ontario, sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action to add a claim for breach of statutory duty under the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion judge refused the amendment on the grounds that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the claim was clearly statute-barred and that the proposed amendment would constitute an entirely new cause of action against different parties.

The court noted that the appellant had the option to amend its statement of claim in the first action instead.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were fixed at $30,000 inclusive.

Strathan Corporation sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action (Second Strathan Action) to include a new claim for breach of statutory duty causing environmental contamination under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, untenable at law, and an abuse of process given a prior action (First Strathan Action) already addressing environmental contamination.

The court dismissed Strathan's motion, finding the new claim was a distinct cause of action, statute-barred by the two-year limitation period (as Strathan knew of the environmental claim since 2009 when it commenced the First Strathan Action), and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to graft a duplicative claim onto a separate action.

The court also rejected the argument that the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its application for judicial review to develop new evidence.

The Divisional Court addressed preliminary issues and exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to decline to hear the application.

The court found the matter was not a review of a quasi-judicial decision, primarily concerned commercial interests, would require the court to perform a trial function, and that the applicant lacked standing.

The application was quashed without a determination on the merits.