Jennifer Danahy

Horn Ventures International Inc. appealed the dismissal of its application to compel Xylem to sell it property, arguing that a binding agreement for sale was triggered by waiving a condition in an Offer to Lease.

The key issue was whether the "Obligation to Purchase" provision could be triggered before environmental remediation of the property was completed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation that the obligation to purchase arose only after Xylem advised that remediation was complete, and Horn Ventures could only waive the environmental consultant's certificate, not the completion of remediation itself.

The appeal was dismissed, as no reversible error was found in the application judge's contractual interpretation.

The applicant tenant sought a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale was binding and an order for specific performance.

The commercial lease contained an obligation for the tenant to purchase the property once the landlord completed environmental remediation and provided a consultant's certificate.

The tenant attempted to trigger the purchase by waiving the requirement for the certificate, even though remediation was not complete.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the contract required the landlord to first advise that remediation was complete before the tenant could waive the certificate.

The court also held that while the provision was not a true condition precedent, it benefited both parties and could not be unilaterally waived by the tenant.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Markham's alleged decisions to plan and approve a four-lane collector road crossing protected Greenbelt lands.

The City argued the application was premature because the environmental assessment and planning processes were ongoing and no final location for the road had been determined.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are complete.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The appellant, Xylem Canada Company, appealed an application judge's order declaring that an obligation to purchase, set out in a 1996 lease, remained in effect through subsequent lease renewals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's interpretation of the contractual documents.

The court reiterated that contractual interpretation involves issues of mixed fact and law, entitling the application judge's decision to deference.

Wrigley Canada Inc. (moving party) sought an interim injunction and an inspection order under Rule 32 to conduct its own environmental testing on the adjacent property owned by Metrus Properties (responding party).

Metrus had sued Wrigley alleging contamination from Wrigley's property and had refused Wrigley access for testing, subsequently beginning excavation work.

The court granted the injunction and inspection order, finding that Wrigley had demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, would suffer irreparable harm if denied access to conduct independent testing before excavation altered the site, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, especially given Metrus's refusal of access and non-disclosure of excavation plans.

The applicant sought to enforce an indemnity agreement relating to environmental contamination, requesting that it be defended at the respondents' expense by counsel taking instructions from the applicant rather than the respondents.

The applicant argued that a conflict of interest existed because the sole officer and director of the indemnifying corporations was also the directing mind of the plaintiff corporation in the underlying action.

The court dismissed the application, finding no direct conflict of interest that would deprive the indemnifying parties of their right to direct the defence, as the director was not acting as counsel and the parties' interests were not directly adverse regarding the indemnity.

The appellant municipality appealed a no-fault remediation order issued by the Ministry of the Environment under s. 157.1 of the Environmental Protection Act following a fuel oil spill that migrated onto municipal property.

The appellant sought to introduce evidence before the Environmental Review Tribunal to prove that others were at fault for the spill, relying on the 'polluter pays' principle.

The Tribunal excluded this evidence as irrelevant to the environmental protection objective of the Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming that evidence of third-party fault is irrelevant to whether a no-fault order should be revoked.

ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.

The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.