Being Proactive With Environmental Claims Case Study: Albert Bloom Limited v. London Transit Commission

• Published date: 02 March 2021
• Subject Matter: Environment, Environmental Law, Climate Change, Clean Air / Pollution
• Law Firm: McCague Borlack LLP
• Author: Mr Howard Borlack and Adam Ostermeier

This matter involves the appeal of a third party's motion for summary judgement on the grounds of a claim being statute barred. The defendant, in this case, attempted to join the third party to the action several years after the claim began on the basis that they had no knowledge of their involvement until well after they replied to the plaintiff's claim. This case demonstrates, however, that what constitutes knowledge of a potential claim, and a party's obligation to further investigate potential claims when evidence is presented to them.

Facts

The case revolved around a dispute between the London Transit Commission ("LTC") and Eaton Industries ("Eaton"). The LTC operated on a property comprised of three lots conveyed to it by the City of London ("London").

• In 1949, two of those three lots were conveyed by London to a predecessor of Eaton.
• Eaton operated an auto part manufacturing facility on the property from 1949 to 1973.
• Eaton then transferred the property back to London.
• London, then transferred the property to LTC to form the three lot parcel it has today.
• Albert Bloom Limited ("Bloom") owns the property to the west of the LTC's lots.
• Ramsden Industries Limited ("Ramsden") owns the property to the south-west of the Bloom property.

On February 3, 2012, LTC was notified of the results of a number of environmental reports that indicated Trichloroethylene ("TCE") had contaminated the Bloom and Ramsden properties through the flow of groundwater. A majority of the reports claimed the LTC property was the likely source of the pollution. A statement of claim was later filed against LTC on April 30, 2013. LTC responded with a statement of defence and crossclaim in January 2014, denying any responsibility for the contamination.

... it had been determined that Eaton had operated a sludge pit on the property...

Throughout this process, Bloom repeatedly requested LTC to investigate its property and perform environmental testing which LTC refused to do. Eventually, this prompted counsel for Bloom to contact the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change ("MOE") who then launched an investigation in the summer of 2014. By March 2015, following the environmental studies, it was determined that Eaton had operated a sludge pit on the property, resulting in the most likely cause of the TCE pollution.

On March 16, 2016, LTC commenced a third party claim against Eaton for their contribution and indemnity as well as damages. In reply, Eaton moved for summary...