Environmental Law - SCJ

The applicants sought to set aside a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitral tribunal's damages award, arguing the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and rendered an award contrary to Canadian public policy.

The tribunal had previously found Canada breached its NAFTA obligations regarding an environmental assessment for a proposed quarry, but in the damages phase, awarded only $7 million USD for the lost opportunity of a fair assessment rather than the $440 million claimed for lost profits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the tribunal correctly applied the international law standard of proof, did not breach natural justice in its procedural rulings regarding expert reports, and rendered a decision that was not contrary to public policy.

The applicant sought to quash the Regional Municipality of Niagara's Woodland Conservation Bylaw, arguing it was ultra vires, conflicted with a historic Crown Patent and provincial statutes, and was impermissibly vague.

The applicant contended that the Crown's previous relinquishment of tree reservations meant the municipality could not regulate tree destruction on the property.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the bylaw was a valid exercise of the municipality's regulatory powers under section 135 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Crown Patent did not supersede provincial or municipal authority to regulate land use, and the bylaw's definitions were sufficiently clear.

The representative plaintiff sought approval of a class action settlement regarding 'defeat devices' in Mercedes Benz BlueTEC diesel vehicles.

The settlement, valued at approximately $530 million, included no-charge emission modifications, extended warranties, and cash payments.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, noting the risks of further litigation.

The court also approved $14 million in legal fees to be paid by the defendants and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff's insurer brought a subrogated claim for damages resulting from a heating oil leak that required the demolition and reconstruction of the plaintiff's home.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant's oil burner technician negligently failed to replace a spin-on filter during an annual maintenance inspection.

The court admitted the plaintiff's expert evidence despite procedural defects, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

However, the court dismissed the action, concluding that the applicable standard of care was compliance with the Ontario Installation Code for Oil-Burning Equipment, which made filter replacement optional.

The technician had inspected the filter and found it in good condition, thereby meeting the standard of care.

The defendants, Eaton and the City of London, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's environmental contamination claims as statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged that historical manufacturing operations on the defendants' former property caused TCE contamination that migrated to the plaintiff's property.

The court found that the plaintiff had actual or objective knowledge of its potential claims against the defendants more than two years before seeking to add them to the action.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the ongoing migration of contaminants constituted a continuing tort or a continuing spill under the Environmental Protection Act.

The motions for summary judgment were granted and the claims against Eaton and the City were dismissed.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for diminution in property value and engineering expenses due to environmental contamination, the parties disputed the calculation of prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff sought interest from the date the defendant was put on notice of the contamination at the presumptive rate of 1.3%, while the defendant argued for a later date and lower rate.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding no reason to depart from the presumptive rate or the date the cause of action arose, and awarded prejudgment interest accordingly.

Following a successful motion for class action certification regarding PFAS groundwater contamination, the plaintiffs sought costs against the unsuccessful defendant, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC).

A successful co-defendant, Carleton University, sought costs against the plaintiffs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57, the court ordered NRC to pay the plaintiffs $207,500 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Carleton University $20,000 plus HST in costs.

The plaintiff, former owner of a commercial property, sued the neighbouring property owner for environmental contamination caused by the migration of dry-cleaning solvents (PCE, TCE, DCE).

The defendant purchased the neighbouring property in 2007 and was put on notice of the contamination in 2010 but failed to take reasonable steps to investigate or remediate the issue, ignoring Ministry of the Environment requests until a Provincial Officer's Order was issued.

The court found the defendant liable in nuisance and negligence for allowing the continuing migration of contaminants after acquiring knowledge of the issue.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,291,307.21 in damages, representing the diminution in the property's market value and reasonable engineering expenses incurred to obtain a Record of Site Condition.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class proceeding against the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and Carleton University, alleging that PFAS contaminants from NRC's National Fire Laboratory migrated into the groundwater of adjacent properties.

The court certified the class action against NRC for claims in strict liability, nuisance, negligence, and statutory breaches, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court dismissed the claim for punitive damages against NRC and refused to certify the common issues against Carleton University due to a lack of evidence connecting its activities to the contamination.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order to permit them to obtain soil and groundwater samples from a neighbouring property owned by a non-party, after the action had been set down for trial.

The plaintiffs sought the samples to allow their expert to perform forensic environmental testing to respond to the defendants' expert reports regarding PCB contamination.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding the expert's need for additional sampling constituted an unexpected change in circumstances.

The court also granted the inspection order, concluding that the testing would be useful and probative in determining whether the contaminants on the plaintiffs' property originated from the neighbouring property.

The applicant conservation authority sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from excavating peat and depositing fill on their property, which is located within a provincially significant wetland.

The respondents had been carrying out these activities without the required permits under the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06.

The court found that the respondents were in flagrant breach of the regulation and that their activities were causing irreparable harm to the wetland.

The court granted the interim injunction, prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the wetland without prior written approval.

The plaintiff municipality sought a declaration that its insurers had a duty to defend it in relation to a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding environmental contamination.

The defendant insurers brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether the Director's Order constituted a 'civil action' under their respective liability policies.

The court held that a regulatory proceeding, including an appeal of a Director's Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal, is not a 'civil action' as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure or the Courts of Justice Act.

Consequently, the insurers had no duty to defend the municipality.

The applicants, seven youths residing in Ontario, brought an application challenging Ontario's cancellation of the Climate Change Act and its newly-enacted greenhouse gas reduction target under the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018.

They alleged that the target violates their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application under Rule 21, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was not justiciable, was based on unprovable speculations, depended on positive obligations, and that the applicants lacked standing for future generations.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the target and plan are reviewable by the courts, the claims are capable of scientific proof, the matter is justiciable as it challenges specific government conduct, the issue of positive obligations should be decided on a full evidentiary record, and the applicants meet the test for public interest standing at this preliminary stage.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to enforce a settlement agreement resolving long-standing environmental contamination litigation.

The defendant had failed to pay the agreed settlement funds, relinquish its claim to trust funds, or permit the plaintiff access to install a barrier to stop the migration of contaminants.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to set aside the settlement, which was negotiated with counsel, environmental advisors, and a mediator.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the settlement amount of $685,000, declared it had no right to the trust funds, and awarded $117,670 in damages for costs incurred due to the defendant's breach.

The applicant sought an interim injunction to prevent the Town of Caledon from enforcing a work order requiring the removal of 5,500 tonnes of illegal fill from his property, as well as an order of mandamus for document disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, noting the high hurdle for enjoining a public authority enforcing its by-laws in the public interest.

Finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the Town, the court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief and mandamus.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair costs of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition of its quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its home statutes and related legislation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants moved to stay a civil action and an Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) proceeding, arguing that concurrent proceedings alongside an Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) prosecution for by-law infractions would prejudice their right to a fair trial and against self-incrimination.

The court temporarily stayed the civil action to avoid duplicative proceedings, noting the plaintiff's undertaking not to seek double recovery.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the ERT proceeding, finding that existing statutory protections and undertaking rules were sufficient to protect the defendants' rights in the OCJ prosecution.

The moving party municipality brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the responding party from dumping large volumes of fill on its property in contravention of a fill control by-law and a stop work order.

The responding party argued its activities fell under a 'landscaping' exception and that the by-law fees were ultra vires.

The court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried that the massive volume of fill did not constitute landscaping, presuming irreparable harm to the public interest, and concluding the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the democratically enacted by-law.

The plaintiff purchased an industrial property that was later discovered to be contaminated with PCBs.

The plaintiff sued the vendor and related companies for fraud, alleging they concealed the contamination.

After several years of litigation, the plaintiff moved to discontinue its fraud action and counterclaim.

The defendants opposed, seeking dismissal and costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to discontinue the action on terms that prevent future litigation on the same causes of action.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $516,395.23 on a substantial indemnity scale, finding that the fraud allegations were unsubstantiated but not intentionally misleading.

The applicant, a resident of the United States, was charged under the Environmental Protection Act with failing to comply with a court order.

A summons was sent to him by registered mail pursuant to s. 26(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The applicant brought an application for an order prohibiting the Provincial Offences Court from continuing the proceeding, arguing that s. 26(3) does not expressly authorize service outside of Ontario or Canada.

The court dismissed the application, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation to find that s. 26(3) implicitly authorizes service of a summons via registered mail upon an individual who resides anywhere outside of Ontario, including outside of Canada.