Tamara Farber

The plaintiff municipality sought to recover environmental remediation costs following a residential furnace oil spill that migrated onto public lands and into a lake.

Several defendants, including an insurer, insurance adjuster, and environmental remediation contractor, brought summary judgment motions to dismiss statutory and negligence claims against them under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court held that none of the moving parties were “owners of the pollutant” or persons “having control of the pollutant” within the meaning of the statute and dismissed the statutory claims.

However, the court declined to summarily dismiss the negligence claims, finding that the potential duty of care owed by an insurer, adjuster, or remediation contractor to an adjoining landowner presented a novel question requiring a full Anns analysis at trial.

Amendments to the statement of claim were also permitted as they arose from the same factual matrix and did not introduce a new cause of action.

The appellant tenant operated a gas bar on premises leased from the respondent landlord.

After discovering a failed underground fuel line, the tenant capped it, terminated the lease, and vacated the premises, leaving the underground tanks and lines behind.

The landlord successfully applied for a declaration that the lease required the tenant to repair the tanks and lines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the underground tanks and lines were 'trade fixtures' rather than 'improvements' under the lease.

Because the lease's repair obligation applied only to improvements, the tenant had no duty to repair the trade fixtures.

The appeal was allowed and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Director under the Business Corporations Act ordering them to change their corporate names to names distinguishable from 'Unity Insurance'.

The Director found that the similarity in names caused confusion among insurers, reinsurers, and brokers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the class of persons likely to be deceived includes anyone with an interest in dealing with the corporation, not just customers.

The court also held it lacked inherent jurisdiction to order the appellants to cease using the unregistered business name 'Unity Insurance'.