Enviroment, Energy & Resources Law Newsletter - November, 2008
Edited by Barry Spiegel
In this issue...
MOE proposes new Brownfields standards, reforms
Class Action: SCC
Court of Appeal denies Lafarge Appeal
Ontario's Waste Diversion Act faces 5-year
review
Electricity Plan hearing interrupted to reconsider
renewables
DOW launches NAFTA claim re herbicide ban
PCBs—Feds Pass Regulations
Toronto Passes Right to Know Bylaw
Ontario proposes Brownfields regime overhaul
Ontario has published a proposal for regulatory amendments,
new clean-up standards, and new guidance documents that will
significantly affect the Brownfields regime. The package of
proposed reforms was published October for 120 day
consultation.
Major changes will include:
New clean-up standards. Many will be more stringent than
current standards – meaning that more properties will
require risk assessment.
New definitions and procedures for Phase 1 and 2
Environmental Site Assessments
New rules and procedures for filing Records of Site
Condition
New rules for assessing contaminants and investigating
neighbouring land uses to set thresholds for off-site
contamination
No limitation of civil liability is proposed.
The proposed clean-up standards are refinements of the proposals
published in March 2007, to correct errors, modify analytical
detection methods, reflect recent scientific and technological
developments, and address excessive conservatism. New tables have
been added for shallow soil and environmentally sensitive
sites.
Download MOE's Table comparing current standards (March 9,
2004) with the new standards proposed October 6, 2008. (See EBR
Posting No. 010-4642 at www.ebr.gov.on.ca )
The new standards will come into force one year after the
regulations are adopted.
New, stricter standards will mean that fewer RSCs can be done
based on the generic standards. Hence risk assessment will be
required more often. MOE is proposing to streamline the risk
assessment process for qualifying sites through an online
"modified generic risk assessment tool". Stakeholders are
encouraging MOE to develop and implement this tool – a
complex and time-consuming task – before putting the new
standards into effect. Failure to have this tool in place will add
significant cost, time, complexity and uncertainty to Brownfields
development.
Download the proposed regulations, standards and technical
documents from EBR Posting No. 010-4642 (at www.ebr.gov.on.ca).
Class Action : SCC finds industry liable despite regulatory
approval
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld a Quebec class action
brought by neighbours of a St. Lawrence Cement facility for causing
odour, noise dust "annoyance" to neighbours. The company
was held liable for damages even though it was established in the
neighbourhood by a special provincial statute in 1952.
Neighbours complained for years, and eventually launched a class
action lawsuit that took more than a decade to reach the Supreme
Court. The decision in St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v.
Barrette, (2008) SCC 64, was released on November 20,
-
The SCC based liability in this case on Article 976 of
Quebec's Civil Code. It prohibits owners of land from imposing
abnormal or excessive annoyances on neighbours. The SCC described
this article as imposing "no-fault" liability.
This decision will be followed in Canada's common law
provinces. The Supreme Court's analysis included a comparative
review of Canadian common law and French civil law. The SCC found
that "in both these legal systems, a scheme of no-fault
liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances is accepted in
one form or another."
The SCC distinguished its 2001 refusal to certify a nuisance
class action in Hollick v. City of Toronto, seemingly on
the basis that the plaintiffs in St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v.
Barrette defined the class of plaintiffs more strictly and
provided the trial court with more persuasive evidence of their
"injury".
Court of Appeal denies Lafarge - Cement company to abandon bid
to burn tires
In late November the Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave
to appeal a Divisional Court decision that upheld neighbours'
rights to challenge Lafarge's certificate of approval to burn
municipal waste and used tires in its Bath, Ontario cement kiln. In
response, Lafarge announced that it will abandon the proposal.
Opposing neighbours announced their intention to seek recovery of
their costs of preparing for the aborted ERT appeal that was
abandoned.
We reported on the Divisional Court decision in our August 2008
issue. The Divis ional Court upheld the Environmental Review
Tribunal (ERT) decision granting neighbours leave to appeal the
MOE's decision to issue the...
To continue reading
Request your trial