John Martin Buhlman

The appellant, a property developer, purchased contaminated land in 1990 and commenced an action in January 2004 seeking damages for soil contamination.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding the action was statute-barred because the appellant had actual knowledge of the contamination by April 1991, triggering a six-year limitation period that had expired long before the action was commenced.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in principle, made palpable and overriding errors of fact, and failed to consider whether its continuing nuisance claim was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's knowledge of contamination in 1991, albeit to an uncertain extent, was sufficient to trigger the limitation period, and the appellant was not required to know the full extent of the contamination for the period to begin running.

The court considered the allocation and quantum of costs following summary judgment in favour of Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), where the third party, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited (CCCL), sought costs from the plaintiff, 863880 Ontario Limited.

The court found that exceptional circumstances justified ordering the plaintiff to pay CCCL’s costs, but not the full amount claimed.

The court directed a revised calculation, holding the plaintiff responsible for half of CCCL’s reasonable costs up to the discontinuance of a related third party claim, and all reasonable costs thereafter, subject to a 20% reduction and further specific deductions.

The defendant, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action by 863880 Ontario Limited (863) as statute-barred.

The action sought damages for TCE contamination on a property purchased by 863 from CPR's predecessors.

CPR argued 863 had sufficient knowledge of the contamination by April 1991, triggering the six-year limitation period. 863 contended it only gained full knowledge in 1998.

The court found that 863 had actual knowledge of the contamination in April 1991, sufficient to trigger the limitation period, as perfect or complete knowledge of the extent or source of damage is not required.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and 863's action against CPR was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a concurrent Case Management Conference for two separate proceedings concerning the transfer of aggregate licences under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal determined that, due to common jurisdictional and legal issues regarding financial compensation for licence transfers, both proceedings should be heard by a common panel to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal issued procedural orders and scheduled the hearings for November 2023 and February 2024.

The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.

The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.

The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a third party as a defendant in an action concerning environmental contamination.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts giving rise to a plausible inference of liability against the proposed defendant more than two years before bringing the motion.

Consequently, the limitation period had expired, and the motion to add the party was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer two refused questions during discovery and to produce environmental documents (Environmental Site Assessments and Risk Assessment Documents) related to alleged property contamination.

The defendant argued these documents were relevant to the pleaded issue of contamination in the Fresh as Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The plaintiff argued the documents were not relevant or that sufficient documents had already been produced.

The court found the requested documents relevant to the issue of contamination and granted the defendant's motion, ordering production of the documents and re-attendance for discovery, with costs awarded to the defendant.

This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.

The plaintiff and third party moved for contempt of court against the defendants for failing to remove a dock as ordered in a previous trial judgment.

The court heard evidence from a Ministry of Natural Resources official regarding the defendants' efforts to obtain the necessary work permits for the removal.

The court found that the defendants were making genuine efforts to comply with the judgment and navigate the regulatory requirements, and therefore dismissed the contempt motion, ordering the defendants to continue using best efforts to remedy the nuisance.

The Harmon Defendants brought a motion to strike the claim against them in the 'Monster Claim'.

The plaintiff, Premium Trust, claimed repayment of a loan but failed to allege any direct contract or duty owed by the Harmon Defendants to Premium Trust.

The court found that the pleading did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action against the Harmon Defendants.

The court struck the relevant paragraph of the claim and granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading.

The defendants brought motions to strike three related actions commenced by investors who financed movie productions.

The plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against various corporate and individual defendants.

The court struck the breach of contract claims against the Nightingale defendants as there was no privity of contract.

The court also struck certain gross negligence and breach of trust claims where insufficient particulars were pleaded.

However, the court upheld the majority of the claims for breach of trust, gross negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against the individual directors, finding they were adequately pleaded.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to proceed with examinations for discovery in the main action separately from the third party claim.

The main action involved allegations of negligence against environmental consultants for failing to identify contamination prior to the plaintiff's purchase of the property.

One defendant issued a third party claim against previous owners, causing significant delays in scheduling discoveries.

The court granted the motion, finding no overlap in liability issues between the main and third party claims, and held that the plaintiff should not be prejudiced by further delays caused by the third party proceedings.

The appellant and the Sickingers applied for costs against Mr. Knoppke following the revocation of a Director's Order.

The Director's Order had required the appellant to remediate a 1990 fuel spill, but was revoked after video evidence revealed Mr. Knoppke pouring fuel oil into a monitoring well, invalidating the sampling data.

The Tribunal found Mr. Knoppke's conduct in tampering with the well to be unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $79,437.70 to the appellant and $14,191.96 to the Sickingers against Mr. Knoppke.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact from a 1990 spill on his property.

The Director subsequently revoked the order after receiving evidence that a third party had tampered with a neighbouring well by adding fuel oil, invalidating the samples, and that there was no credible evidence linking the 1990 spill to the current contamination.

The Tribunal found the revocation consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and dismissed the appeal.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow for further environmental sampling and testing regarding a historic petroleum spill.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties had mixed positions.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and would not cause environmental harm, as the Director's Order remained in effect.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order issued under the Environmental Protection Act for the assessment and remediation of a petroleum spill.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the request, vacating the April 2016 hearing dates and adjourning the matter to September 2016.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a remediation order.

The Director sought the adjournment because new hydrogeological reports cast doubt on the assumption that a spill on the appellant's property caused the contamination on a neighbouring property.

The appellant consented to the adjournment, while other parties opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it was in the public interest and necessary to ensure a full and fair hearing given the new scientific evidence.

The Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding an order to retain a consultant for petroleum spill remediation.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a teleconference for November 9, 2015, with reasons to follow.

The Appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the retention of a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impacts on groundwater from a 1990 spill.

Following a preliminary hearing to establish the issues list, several added parties requested the inclusion of new issues.

The Environmental Review Tribunal confirmed the exclusion of the proposed issues, finding no reason to depart from its previous order, but amended one issue regarding the supplier of lake-based water.

The Tribunal also clarified that jurisdictional arguments regarding the addition of another party to the Order were not precluded.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring him to retain a consultant to assess and remediate petroleum impact on groundwater from a 1990 fuel oil spill on his cottage property.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Environmental Review Tribunal issued an order clarifying the scope of the appeal and organizing the issues to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal identified seven main issues within the scope of the appeal and excluded issues related to remedy or expanding the Director's Order.