A third party sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim arising from a fuel oil tank leak that contaminated neighbouring properties.
The moving party argued that its role in promulgating industry standards constituted a policy decision for which it was immune from civil liability.
The court held it was not plain and obvious that no duty of care could exist, particularly regarding allegations of inadequate standards, failure to warn of known hazards, negligent investigation, and proximity between the regulator and affected parties.
Given the incomplete evidentiary record and the novelty of the duty-of-care issue, the court declined to grant summary judgment.
The matter was left open for reconsideration after discovery and a fuller factual record.
