Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-39359 DATE: 2017/03/22 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

EDDY HUANG Plaintiff – and – FRASER HILLARY’S LIMITED and DAVID HILLARY Defendants

Counsel: Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie, for the Plaintiff Jonathan O’Hara, for the Defendant Fraser Hillary’s Limited Paul Muirhead and Jeremy Rubenstein, for the Defendant David Hillary

P.E. Roger, J.

Addendum to Reasons for Decision

[1] On March 17, 2017, counsel for the defendant, Fraser Hillary’s Limited (“FHL”), sought an opportunity to present to this Court supplementary submissions from FHL and from the other parties regarding the right to compensation under s. 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 (the “EPA”). Counsel for FHL explained that, following the release of this Court’s reasons for decision, he became aware of the Court of Appeal decision in McCann v. Environmental Compensation Corp. (1990), 5 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 247 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal to SCC refused, (1994) 80 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.).

[2] Although courts have the discretion to reconsider a decision before judgment is formally entered, considering the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied that justice has been done and that any issue arising from the above does not override the value of finality.

[3] Indeed, my principal finding relating to the application of the EPA was that applying s. 99(2) to the circumstances of this case did not constitute a retroactive application. Furthermore, insofar as McCann may touch upon the retrospective application of the EPA, the issue only arose due to the dismissal of the appellant’s application to introduce new evidence on appeal and it is not clear that it applies to this case.

[4] This Court will therefore not entertain any additional submission on this point.

Mr. Justice Pierre E. Roger Released: March 22, 2017