TPH Risk Evaluation at Petroleum-Contaminated Sites

The United States Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Risk Evaluation team has developed this guidance to assist state regulators and practitioners with evaluating risk and establishing cleanup requirements at petroleum release sites. This guidance focuses on factors that are unique to petroleum hydrocarbon releases and builds on other available documents published by the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) (1997a1997b1997c1998a1998b1999), ITRC Risk-3 (2015), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) (2014), California State Water Board–San Francisco Bay Region (CASWB-SFBR) (2016a), and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (2017b).

Risk evaluations for petroleum release sites present complex and unique challenges to site managers, risk assessors, regulators, and other stakeholders. Mischaracterizing risks associated with petroleum contamination can lead to unnecessary cleanups, inappropriate property use limitations, or, most importantly, inadequate protection of human health and ecological receptors. Once released to the environment, petroleum contamination changes over time and space due to natural and anthropogenic weathering processes. Although traditional indicator compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and naphthalene [BTEXN]) may be present below levels of concern in impacted media, unidentified petroleum fractions or degradation products (metabolite compounds) could potentially still pose a risk to human health and ecological receptors. Summarizing approaches to evaluate this topic in more detail is one of the primary objectives of this document and it is hoped that this document will assist in further research regarding this subject.

A common assumption at petroleum release sites is that the carcinogenic indicator compounds (e.g., benzene, naphthalene, and, for some regulatory agencies, ethylbenzene and additives such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether [MTBE]) typically drive risk-based decision making rather than other petroleum compounds that may be present. However, very few field-based studies comparing risks posed by individual compounds found in TPH (such as benzene) to risks posed by the broader spectrum of TPH-related compounds have been published (Brewer et al. 2013). Additionally, concentrations of carcinogenic compounds might be reduced to low concentrations relative to other hydrocarbons due to natural attenuation processes. At such sites, the remaining petroleum hydrocarbons and petroleum-related degradation products (e.g., petroleum-related metabolites) can be expected to contribute to the potential human health noncarcinogenic risk at petroleum release sites.

This guidance will improve regulators’ and project managers’ understanding of the unique properties of TPH and provide the tools, techniques, and lessons learned to improve risk characterization and to make better-informed risk management decisions at petroleum-contaminated sites.

To access the guidance document, visit the ITRC website.

City of Kawartha Lakes fined $75K for alleged violations under Fisheries Act

On January 31, 2019, the Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes entered into a diversion agreement with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada after Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) laid charges under the Fisheries Act. The agreement requires the city to pay $75,000 to the Environmental Damages Fund; update their standard operating procedures for drain works; and publish a notice of the incident on the city’s website. Charges laid against the city will be withdrawn once all measures outlined in the diversion agreement have been met, as determined by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

The City of Kawathra Lakes in Ontario, approximately 70 kilometres northeast of Toronto. Kawartha Lakes is the size of a typical Ontario county and is mostly rural. It is the second largest single-tier municipality in Ontario by land area.

In August 2014, a city-hired contractor carried out maintenance work on the a drainage works. The work resulted in a sediment release into the fish-bearing waterway. Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers investigated the incident and determined that the sediment concentrations released during the work were deleterious to fish. It was also determined that the work was undertaken without taking adequate steps to mitigate the release of sediments into the waterway.

Maintenance is performed on drainage works to prevent flooding

Kawartha Lakes communications manager Cheri Davidson told MyKawthra.com that there was concern that the method used to dismantle the blockage resulted in silt and sediment being released into that drain when one of the city’s silt controls failed, which in turn resulted in the death of fish. 

The City of Kawartha Lakes agreed to donate $75,000 to the Environmental Damages Fund (EDF) on condition that the charges laid by ECCC be withdrawn.

Kawartha Lakes has made changes to the way it looks after drains to reduce the possibility for sediment to escape into the surrounding environment. The municipality has also funded Kawartha Conservation’s update to the drain maintenance classification. 

Created in 1995, the Environmental Damages Fund is a Government of Canada program administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada. The Fund follows the polluter pays principle and ensures that court-awarded penalties are used for projects with positive environmental impacts.

The $75,000 donation from the City of Kawathra Lakes to Environmental Damages Fund will be available for the next five years to support projects within the municipality that focus on environmental restoration, environmental quality improvement, research and development, or education. To apply for funding, see:  https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/damages-fund.html

Environmental No-Fault EPA Orders Compelling Off-Site Investigations are Alive and Well in Ontario

Article by Marc McAree, Partner and Certified Environmental Law Specialist and Anand Srivastava, Associate, with assistance of Matthew Lakatos-Hayward, Student-at-Law, Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP

Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”), section 18 permits the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) Director to issue an Order to any current or former owner or occupier of contaminated property. 

Section 18 Orders are no-fault Orders.  Section 18 Orders do not require the orderee to have any nexus to the polluting activity aside from the orderees’ current or former ownership and/or occupation of a contaminated property.

In Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, [1] the the MECP Director issued a no-fault section 18 Order to the current owner of a contaminated property, former owners of the property, and the current tenant of the property. 

The orderees challenged the broad scope of the Director’s no-fault section 18 Order.  The orderees argued, inter alia, that Section 18 orders are “absurd”. 

The orderees appealed the section 18 Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal (“ERT”).  For purposes of the appeal only, the MECP agreed that the orderees did not cause historic contamination at the source property.

Reading the EPA, section 18 and applying principles of statutory interpretation, the ERT dismissed the orderees’ appeal.  The ERT confirmed that the MECP Director has jurisdiction to issue EPA, section 18 orders where:

  1. the orderees did not own the source property at the time of the contaminating activity
  2. the orderees did not operate at the source property at the time of the contaminating activity
  3. the contamination migrated from the source property to down-gradient, off-site properties
  4. the Order requires investigation and delineation of contamination at down-gradient, off-site properties, and/or
  5. an “adverse effect” (as defined in the EPA) has occurred, is occurring and/or may occur in the future.

The orderees then appealed the ERT’s decision upholding the MECP Director’s Order to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court.  The orderees argued that the ERT’s decision was wrong and should be reversed on a standard of correctness.

The Divisional Court disagreed with the orderees and held that the ERT’s decision met both the standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir) and the standard of correctness.

The Divisional Court concluded:

… the [ERT] carefully considered the [orderees’] interpretation … It rejected their interpretation of s. 18.  In doing so, it applied the principle of modern statutory interpretation … The [ERT] decision is transparent, justified and intelligible and falls well within the range of possible outcomes (Dunsmuir at para 47).  The Tribunal’s decision was reasonable and, in my view, correct and consistent with the modern principles of statutory interpretation.[2]

The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the MECP’s jurisdiction to issue no-fault Orders requiring off-site investigation.  

On December 12, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal denied the orderees leave to appeal from the Divisional Court’s decision.

The upshot of Hamilton Beach is that Ontario Environmental Protection Act, section 18 no-fault Orders requiring off-site environmental investigation are permitted even where the Orderee did not have any association with the polluting activity aside from the Orderee’s current or former ownership and/or occupation of the contaminated source property.


Footnotes

[1]      14 CELR (4th) 137 (Ont ERT) aff’d 2018 ONSC 5010 (Div Ct); Decision issued September 4, 2018

[2]      2018 ONSC 5010 at para 73.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
© Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP


About the Authors

Marc McAree is a partner at Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP and a Certified Specialist in Environmental Law.  He provides advice and solutions to a wide range of clients that help them overcome their environmental law and litigation issues. Marc also provides mediation on environmental issues. Marc is admitted to the bars of Ontario and British Columbia. Marc may be reached at 416-862-4820 or by e-mail at mmcaree@willmsshier.com.

Anand Srivastava is an associate at Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP.  He has expertise in assisting a broad range of clients with environmental law and litigation issues.  Anand draws on his science background to facilitate practical solutions to complex environmental legal issues.  Anand is called to the bar of Ontario. He may be reached at 416-862-4829 or by e-mail at asrivastava@willmsshier.com.

Update on the Thunder Bay Harbour Clean-up

As reported in TB News Watch, a recommendation on the best method of cleaning up 400,000 cubic metres of contamination sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour is not expected until the end of 2019. There’s enough industrial sediment (mainly pulp and paper sludge), containing mercury and other contaminants, on the bottom of the north harbour to fill 150 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Thunder Bay is located at the northwest corner of Lake Superior and has a population of approximately 110,000. As the largest city in Northwestern Ontario, Thunder Bay is the region’s commercial, administrative and medical centre. It had been known in that past for it pulp and paper mills and as a key shipping port for grain.

Approximate Area of Contaminated Sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour

A new working group that’s revived efforts to manage 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment in Thunder Bay’s north harbour has targeted the end of 2019 for a recommended solution.

Two federal departments, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, co-chair the group which also includes the Ontario environment ministry, the Thunder Bay Port Authority and numerous other local stakeholders.

A new steering committee has been formed to examine three options for remediation presented to the public in 2014. A previous committee formed to look at those options went dormant, necessitating the refresh.

“At this point, we want to further evaluate those [three existing] options and to look at additional options over the next 14 months,” said Roger Santiago, the head of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s sediment remediation group in November of 2018. The group primarily works on cleaning up contaminated patches in the Great Lakes.

A previous steering committee was established 10 years ago, and remediation options were developed, but momentum toward a cleanup or remediation of the contaminated site slowed after that.

That was despite the fact a 2013 risk assessment identified “unacceptable risks” to human health and to plant and animal life in the harbour area:

  • potential risk to people consuming fish (fish consumption advisory in place to mitigate the risk)
  • potential risk to people coming in direct contact with contaminated sediment
  • potential risk to kingfishers from mercury
  • potential risk to sediment-dwelling organisms from total resin acids

Impetus for a cleanup occurred earlier this year after Patty Hajdu, the MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, raised the issue with her cabinet colleagues, the transport and environment ministers.

There’s enough industrial sediment, containing mercury and other contaminants, on the bottom of the north harbour to fill 150 Olympic-size swimming pools.

The area was classified by a consultant and by federal experts as a Class 1 polluted site using the Federal Aquatic Sites Classification System. Class 1 sites indicate high priority for action.

A Transport Canada spokesperson told Tbnewswatch the working group will spend the next 12 months on technical and environmental studies, and will consult with the general public and with Indigenous groups as it evaluates a short list of management options.

The source of the contamination is historical dumping of pulp and paper mill pollution that resulted in mercury-contaminated paper sludge up to 4 metres thick lying at the bottom of the harbour. The sediment is contaminated with mercury in concentrations that range from 2 to 11 ppm at the surface of the sediment to 21 ppm at depth and ranging in thickness from 40 to 380 centimeters and covering an area of about 22 hectares (54 acres).


Greyish, digested pulp sludge up to 4 metres thick lies across the north harbour bottom (Transport Canada)


Clean-up Options

A 2017 Consultants report stated that the preferred option was to dredge the sediment and transfer it to the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at the harbour’s south end.  The dredging and transfer option was estimated to cost $40 million to $50 million, and was considered the best choice based on factors such as environmental effectiveness and budget.  The consultants also looked at other options, including capping and excavation/isolation.

The capping option would consist of placing clean material on top of the contaminated material to contain and isolate the contaminants. A geotextile (a strong fabric barrier) will support the cap material. The budget for this option was estimated at $30-$40 million.

The proposed excavation option would involve building a dam to isolate the contaminated material from the water prior to removal. Once the dam was built, the area would be dewatered so that earth-moving equipment like excavators, loaders and bulldozers can be used to remove the material. It would then be disposed of in a secure landfill. A new on-site Confined Disposal Facility has been recommended or the use of the the existing Confined Disposal Facility at Mission Bay. The excavation option is estimated to cost $80-$90 million.

No matter what is decided upon, the 2017 consultant’s report estimated it would take seven years to complete the clean up. 


Canadian Federal Government Proposing New Regulations on Cross-border movement of Hazardous Waste

Environment Canada and Climate Change (ECCC), which is the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recently released draft regulations to control the cross-border movement of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. The regulations, if eventually promulgated, would repeal and replace the Export and Import Regulations, the Interprovincial Movement Regulations, and the PCB Waste Export Regulations. Although the proposed Regulations would maintain the core permitting and movement tracking requirements of the former regulations, the regulatory provisions would be amended to ensure greater clarity and consistency of the regulatory requirements.

Electronic Tracking System

The proposed Regulations would provide flexibility for the electronic movement tracking system by no longer prescribing the specific form required for tracking shipments of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. Instead, the proposed Regulations would require specific information to be included in a movement document (that can be generated electronically) and would allow movement document information to be passed on to different parties in parallel to facilitate the tracking rather than prescribing the handover of copies from one party to another.

Furthermore, given that movement documents would be able to be managed electronically, the proposed Regulations would no longer require that the movement document and permit physically accompany the shipment. The proposed Regulations would instead require parties to immediately produce the movement document and the permit upon request. Similar simplifications would be included in the provisions related to the movement document for interprovincial movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material.

The proposed Regulations would clarify the responsibility of a receiving (importing) facility to pass on information regarding the origin of the hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material being transferred to a subsequent authorized facility for final disposal or recycling. Clarifications would also be made to the provisions for the return and rerouting of shipments to better align those requirements with current practice and ensure that confirmation of disposal from the alternative facility is also required in order to properly complete the tracking of those shipments.

Definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material

With respect to interprovincial movements, under the proposed regulations, the definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material would be aligned with those of international movements. In addition, proposed changes to those definitions would ensure a more consistent application of regulatory provisions for all types of transboundary movements and would better align definitions with other jurisdictions and international agreements. Some of these proposed changes are listed below.

Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure

The proposed Regulations would reference the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), in its entirety. This procedure is a standard test method used to evaluate the mobility of a number of contaminants that may be found in waste and recyclable material and, therefore, their potential for release. While making reference to the TCLP, the Export and Import Regulations exclude a step requiring that the size of particles in a sample be reduced to fit into the testing apparatus. In order to ensure that the method is used consistently, hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material undergoing testing would need to be shredded to meet the TCLP’s specific particle size requirement.

Electrical and electronic equipment

Electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) is not currently listed as hazardous under the Export and Import Regulations and must meet other criteria to fall under the definitions of hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material, which can be difficult to ascertain. The proposed Regulations would clearly designate “circuit boards and display devices and any equipment that contains them” as hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material to be controlled when destined for specific disposal or recycling operations. The proposed Regulations would maintain the exclusion currently under the Export and Import Regulations for this type of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material moving within OECD countries (including moving between provinces and territories in Canada).

Mercury

The proposed Regulations would remove the small quantity exclusion for hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material containing mercury. Any waste or material containing any amount of mercury that meets the definitions of hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material would be subject to the regulatory provisions for both international and interprovincial movements.

Batteries

Batteries are not currently listed as hazardous under the Export and Import Regulations and must meet other criteria to fall under the definitions of hazardous waste or hazardous recyclable material. Some types of batteries are clearly covered by the definitions; however, for some other types it is not clear. The proposed Regulations would clarify that all types of batteries (i.e. rechargeable and non-rechargeable) being shipped internationally or interprovincially for disposal or recycling are included in the definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material.

Terrapure Battery Recycling Facility

Waste and recyclable material generated on ships

The proposed Regulations would add a new exclusion to clarify that waste or recyclable material generated from the normal operations of a ship is not captured by the definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. This exclusion would further harmonize the proposed Regulations with the Basel Convention (which excludes this waste) and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 where this waste is already covered.

Residual quantities

The proposed Regulations would add a new exclusion for waste or recyclable material that is to be transported in a container after the contents of that container have been removed to the maximum extent feasible and before the container is either refilled or cleaned of its residual content. This exclusion would clarify that such waste or recyclable material is not captured by the definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material.

Recycling operation R14

Over the years, ECCC has received numerous questions regarding recycling operation R14 found in Schedule 2 of the Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations. Section 2 R14 reads as follows : “Recovery or regeneration of a substance or use or re-use of a recyclable material, other than by any of operations R1 to R10”. This recycling operation is not included in the Basel Convention or the OECD Decision.  ECCC is proposing to delete this part of operation R14 to remove uncertainty about its application.  This change may result in some recyclable material no longer being captured and defined as hazardous.  For example, a used material that is to be used directly in another process that is not listed as a recycling operation would no longer be captured. 
This change would further align regulatory provisions with international guidelines under the Basel Convention.


Exports, Imports and Transits of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material 2003-2012

Proposed changes regarding waste containing PCBs

The regulatory provisions for the export of waste containing PCBs would be streamlined and integrated into those for hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. This would include removing the partial prohibition on exports of waste containing PCBs in a concentration equal to or greater than 50 mg/kg to allow controlled exports beyond the United States. Therefore, waste and recyclable material containing PCBs in a concentration equal to or greater than 50 mg/kg would be able to be exported provided a permit is obtained and all of the conditions of the proposed Regulations are met.

Proposed changes to improve the permitting process

The proposed Regulations would no longer require the name of the insurance company and the policy number for the exporter, the importer and carriers with the notification (i.e. permit application). In addition, copies of the contracts would no longer need to be provided with the notification. In both cases, the applicant would be required to provide a statement to the effect that valid insurance policies and contracts are in place and to keep proof of insurance coverage and copies of contracts at their place of business in Canada for five years.

The proposed Regulations would require a new notification for any changes in information, other than correcting clerical errors, on a permit.

The proposed Regulations would increase the maximum duration of a permit from 12 months to 3 years, consistent with international agreements, for the movement of hazardous recyclable material directed to pre-consented facilities within OECD countries.

The proposed Regulations would set out conditions under which a permit may be refused, suspended or revoked.

Impacts on Business – Costs and Operations

According to the consultation documents prepared by ECCC, the proposed Regulations, if promulgated, would affect 295 companies, 281 of which would be considered small businesses. For these small businesses, the proposed Regulations are expected to result in incremental compliance and administrative costs of $296,000 in average annualized costs, that is, $1,070 per small business.

If the proposed Regulations are implemented, it would result in an clarifications to the definitions of hazardous waste and would ensure a more consistent application of regulatory provisions. In addition, the proposed Regulations would help minimize environmental impacts outside Canada by ensuring that exported hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material reach the intended disposal or recycling facilities. The present value of compliance and administrative costs of the proposed Regulations would be $2.5 million in 2017 Canadian dollars, discounted at 3% to 2018 over a 10-year period between 2021 and 2030.

The proposed Regulations would impose incremental administrative costs on industry attributable to the completion of additional movement documents for interprovincial movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material. Provincial and territorial authorities that are using a tracking system would achieve small savings if they decided not to request movement document information. The present value of administrative costs of the proposed Regulations are expected to be $460,000 in 2017 Canadian dollars, discounted at 3% to 2018, over a 10-year period between 2021 and 2030.

Public Consultation

Public comments to the proposed Regulations are being accepted by ECCC until up to mid-February. Any person may file with the Minister of the Environment comments with respect to the proposed Regulations or a notice of objection requesting that a board of review be established under section 333 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and stating the reasons for the objection. All comments and notices must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent by mail to Nathalie Perron, Director, Waste Reduction and Management Division, Environmental Protection Branch, Department of the Environment, 351 Saint-Joseph Blvd., Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3 (fax: 819-938-4553; email: ec.mt-tm.ec@canada.ca).

Proposed Changes to Ontario’s Toxics Reduction Program

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation Parks (MOECP) recently issued a proposal that will change the regulation (O. Reg. 455/09) under the Toxics Reduction Act , 2009. Under the proposed regulatory amendments, the following changes would be implemented:

  • facilities with existing toxics reduction plans would no longer be required to conduct reviews of those plans;
  • certain facilities would be exempt from all future planning and reporting obligations for certain substances; and
  • facilities with existing plans would still be obligated to maintain annual reporting requirements.

The proposed exemptions would apply to the following facilities:

  • Facilities that have never planned or reported under the program, but now meet the reporting threshold for one or more toxic substances; or
  • Facilities that have been out of the program for three or more years for a toxic substance, but are coming back into the program because they meet a reporting threshold again; or
  • Facilities that are currently planning and reporting under the program, and now meet the reporting thresholds for a new toxic substance at the facility.

With respect to substances, the proposed exemptions would apply to the following obligations:

  • Creating a toxic reduction plan;
  • Tracking and quantifying toxic substances;
  • Annual Reporting on planned reductions; and
  • Reviewing the toxic reduction plan.

The rationale for the proposed changes to the regulation is that it overlaps with federal reporting requirements. The Ontario Toxics Reduction Program requires industry to report publicly on their use of toxic substances, and identify options to reduce those substances through toxic reduction plans. The Canadian federal Chemicals Management Plan requires industry to reduce the use and/or release of certain toxic substances. The federal approach is more comprehensive than the existing provincial program.

Another rationale for amending the regulation is that the MOECP claims that the Toxics Reduction Program has not achieved meaningful reductions. Preliminary results compiled by the MOECP indicate an overall reduction of 0.04% of substances used, created and released for all regulated facilities.

A costing analysis was carried out by the MOECP in conjunction with the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade, and it was found that the annual average net savings of this proposal will far exceed the annual average administrative costs.

The MOECP cost analysis estimated that the regulatory proposal will cost current facilities an annual average administrative cost of $818,000 to learn about the changes to the regulations and to continue reporting on existing toxics substances until 2021. These costs are offset by the total annual average administrative net savings of approximately $4 million for all facilities to stop planning and for the program to end in 2021 (when the federal government has completed its chemical assessments and taken action on many toxic substances). All cost analysis was calculated as Average Annual Present Value costs discounted at 2.5% over 10 years.

Toxics Reduction Program Map

The Ontario government maintains a website that shows the locations of facilities subject to the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009, the number of facilities with plans to reduce toxics use, and information on the number of toxics reported. Users of the website can search for for and access information from Ontario facilities that use, create, release, dispose and recycle toxic substances. They can also learn more about these substances and how facilities are taking action to reduce their creation and use to protect the environment and human health. Finally, users of the website can search by location, facility, or public health unit and use the advanced search filters such as year, sector or substance to improve your search results.

Public Comment Period Ends January 20th

The MOECP is accepting public comments to the proposal until January 20th, 2019. Comments can be submitted online or to Michael Friesen of the MOECP (416-314-0131).

New Year, New Environmental Rules: Alberta’s Revised Remediation Rules Take Effect in 2019

by Dufferin Harper and Lindsey Mosher, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

On January 1, 2019, significant amendments to Alberta’s Remediation Certificate Regulation came into force. These include:

  • Renaming the regulation the Remediation Regulation
  • Creating a site-based remediation certificate
  • Creating a new reporting requirement for impacts
  • Defaulting to the application of Tier 1 rather than Tier 2 Guidelines
  • Issuing a Tier 2 compliance letter
  • Establishing a new mandatory remedial measures timeline

As discussed in more detail below, many of the amendments address long-standing concerns within the existing remediation certification process. However, in several instances they also introduce new areas of regulatory uncertainty.

SITE-BASED REMEDIATION CERTIFICATE

One of the primary concerns with the existing regime is that it is too limited in scope. Although it provides for remediation certificates to be issued for specific areas of land impacted by a contaminant release, it does not enable a property owner to obtain regulatory signoff for a complete site as opposed to only an area of a site.

In response to that concern, the Remediation Regulation introduces a new type of remediation certificate applicable to a complete site, which is referred to as a “site-based remediation certificate”. A site-based remediation certificate confirms that all contaminants and areas of potential concern both on and off site have been addressed and necessarily involves the submission of more extensive documentation than what is required for a limited remediation certificate.  To assist in the application process, the Alberta government is expected to develop and release a new application form and guide for a site-based remediation certificate application prior to January 2019.

NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT

A person responsible for a release currently has a statutory obligation to report the release. In addition to this existing obligation, the Remediation Regulation imposes an additional obligation to report any new information about the “impact” of a released substance. Neither of the terms “new information”, nor “impact”, are defined in the Remediation Regulation, and it remains to be seen what additional guidance, if any, will be provided to clarify the scope of the additional obligation. Until that occurs, or until the courts clarify the scope of the obligation, uncertainty will likely prevail.

APPLICATION OF TIER 1 VERSUS TIER 2 GUIDELINES

Under the current Remediation Certificate Regulation, a person applying for a remediation certificate may elect to apply either generic Tier 1 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 1 Guidelines) or site -specific Tier 2 Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines (Tier 2 Guidelines).

The Remediation Regulation removes this discretionary election. Instead, the Tier 1 Guidelines will always be the default remediation standard. Regulatory approval will be required to remediate to Tier 2 Guidelines.

TIER 2 COMPLIANCE LETTER

Another major concern (and criticism) of the existing regime involves the situation where contaminant levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines but not Tier 2 Guidelines. In such a situation, if the Tier 2 Guidelines are applied, the affected area will not require remediation. Notwithstanding the levels exceed Tier 1 Guidelines and would otherwise require remediation but for the application of the Tier 2 Guidelines, the regulator’s position is that, since there has been no “remediation”, it is unable to issue a “remediation certificate”.  The Remediation Regulation addresses this situation, albeit indirectly.  Rather than amending the scenarios under which a remediation certificate can be issued to account for the above situation, the Remediation Regulation introduces a hybrid type of approval, described as a “Tier 2 compliance letter”. Such a letter will be issued by the regulator when it is satisfied the area or the site meets Tier 2 Guidelines and therefore does not need to be remediated. The difficulty with such a hybrid approach is that it is unclear what type of legal protection a “Tier 2 compliance letter” provides. For example, a remediation certificate currently provides protection against a subsequent environmental protection order being issued for the same contaminant and area. A Tier 2 compliance letter provides no similar protection.  Furthermore, no reference to a Tier 2 compliance letter is set out in Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and its legal significance is therefore unknown.

NEW REMEDIAL MEASURES TIMELINE

The Remediation Regulation introduces a mandatory timeline for remedial measures for all releases reported after January 1, 2019. If remediation cannot be completed to the satisfaction of the regulator within the following two years, a remedial action plan acceptable to the regulator must be submitted in accordance with the requirements of the Remediation Regulation.

The timeline is not mandatory for the complete remediation of a release. Rather, it is a timeline for the submission of a remedial action plan that will describe what further remedial activities will occur in the future. As such, it appears to be nothing more than an administrative requirement as opposed to an actual remedial efficiency requirement.

NEXT STEPS

The Remediation Regulation came into force as of January 1, 2019, and all releases now must comply with its provisions. Releases reported before January 1, 2019 continue to be regulated in accordance with the old regime under the Remediation Certificate Regulation.

This article was first published on the Blakes Business Class website. It is republished with the permission of the authors and Blakes. Copyright of this article remains with Blakes.


About the Authors

Dufferin (Duff) Harper practices in the areas of environmental law, commercial litigation and regulatory law. He routinely acts for clients on environmental due diligence and liability issues, especially as they pertain to brownfield redevelopment and transportation of dangerous goods. On the corporate side, he specializes in crafting complicated environmental agreements that allocate environmental risks and address remediation requirements. He also advises clients on greenhouse gas matters including the purchase and sale of greenhouse gas emissions credits, offset credits and other environmental attributes.

Duff has acted as lead counsel in several litigation cases involving contaminated sites, both on behalf of contaminated property owners and parties who were allegedly responsible for the contamination. On the regulatory front, he has appeared before numerous levels of courts and assessment tribunals, including tribunals constituted pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) ), the National Energy Board (NEB) and numerous provincial regulators.

Duff also provides strategic regulatory compliance and environmental impact assessment advice to industrial clients, such as conventional oil and gas companies, mining companies, companies operating in the oil sands, and liquefied natural gas proponents.

Lindsey Mosher’s practice focuses on energy regulation, as well as environmental and administrative law. She has experience in a broad range of regulatory matters, including regulatory compliance issues, regulatory approvals and hearings, and corporate matters.

Prior to joining Blakes, Lindsey obtained industry experience working in the legal department of a large Canadian oil and gas company, Alberta’s utilities regulator and a large Canadian telecommunications company.

Lindsey has appeared before Alberta’s utilities regulator, the Provincial Court of Alberta and the Court of Appeal of Alberta.

Canada’s draft 2019–2022 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy: Impacts on Clean Technology and Brownfield Development

The Government of Canada recently released the Draft 2019–2022 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for public consultation and tabled the Government’s 2018 Progress Report of the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.

The draft Strategy sets out the Government of Canada’s environmental sustainability priorities, establishes goals and targets, and identifies actions that 42 departments and agencies across government will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their operations and advance sustainable development across Canada.

Of interest to professionals in the environmental sector is some of the Government’s goals with respect to the greening of government. For example, the Government is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from federal government facilities and fleets by 40% by 2030 (with an aspiration to achieve this target by 2025) and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. It also has the goal to divert at least 75% (by weight) of all non-hazardous operational waste (including plastic waste) by 2030, and divert at least 90% (by weight) of all construction and demolition waste (striving to achieve 100% by 2030), where supported by local infrastructure. The administrative fleet will be comprised of at least 80% zero-emission vehicles by 2030 according to the draft report.

With respect to real property, the proposed actions of the Canadian federal government include the following: (1) All new buildings and major building retrofits will prioritize low-carbon investments based on integrated design principles, and life-cycle and total cost-of-ownership assessments which incorporate shadow carbon pricing; (2) Minimize embodied carbon and the use of harmful materials in construction and renovation; and (3) Departments will adopt and deploy clean technologies and implement procedures to manage building operations and take advantage of programs to improve the environmental performance of their buildings.

For professionals involved in clean technology, the draft report calls for the implement of the Government’s pledge to double federal government investments in clean energy research, development and demonstration from 2015 levels of $387 million to $775 million by 2020.

The 2018 Progress Report shows how the Government of Canada is implementing the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, demonstrating that it is on track to meeting many of the commitments laid out in the Strategy. This includes highlighting the leadership role Canada has taken in working toward zero plastic waste and implementing measures to conserve marine areas, as well as actions on climate change.

With respect to clean technology, clean energy, and clean growth, the progress report touts the fact that through three consecutive federal budgets, the Government of Canada has made substantial investments in initiatives to support clean technology, clean energy and clean growth. These commitments include: (1) $2.3 billion in 2017 for clean technology and clean energy research, development, demonstration, adoption, commercialization and use; (2) $1.26 billion in Budget 2017 for the Strategic Innovation Fund; and (3) $4 billion in 2018 in Canada’s research and science infrastructure, much of which helps drive innovation towards a clean growth economy.

The draft Strategy updates the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, largely maintaining its aspirational goals while adding targets that reflect new initiatives, updating milestones with new priorities, and strengthening links to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In all, 29 medium-term targets support the draft Strategy’s goals, along with 60 short-term milestones and clear action plans.

Among other results, the 2018 Progress Report shows that

  • from 2016 to 2017, greenhouse gas emissions from federal government operations were 28 per cent lower than in 2005 to 2006—more than halfway to the target to reduce emissions from federal buildings and fleets by 40 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030;
  • as of December 2017, close to 8 per cent of Canada’s coastal and marine areas were conserved; and
  • from 2017 to 2018, visits to national parks and marine conservation areas increased by 34 per cent above the 2010 to 2011 baseline levels.

Canadians have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Strategy until early Spring 2019. For further information: Caroline Thériault, Press Secretary, Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 613-462-5473.

Ontario Government’s Plans on the Environment: Impact on Brownfield Development

The Ontario Government released a Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan in late 2018 in partially in response to criticism that it had no plan for addressing climate change after it cancelled the greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade program of the previous government. The plan includes several proposals that should be on interest to persons involved in brownfield development.

The Ontario government 52-page document (entitled (“Preserving and Protecting or Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”) commits to protecting air, lakes and rivers; addressing climate change; reducing litter and waste; and conserving land and greenspace. Many of the measures establish a direction but the details will have to be further developed.

With respect to contaminated sites and brownfields, the document talks about the “polluter pay”, and engaging environment business and entrepreneurs. However, it is lacking in details.

Generating GHG from Brownfield Projects

The Ontario government’s proposed replaced to the scraped GHG trading regulation is the Creating the Ontario Carbon Fund. While details are to be worked out, the plan proposes to use $400M of government funding with the aim of leveraging additional private funds on a 4:1 basis to support “investment in clean technologies that are commercially viable.” The fund will also support a “reverse auction” model whereby emitters will “bid” for funding to support their GHG reduction projects.

There is a possibility that developers involved in brownfield redevelopment could be eligible for government funding depending on if clean technologies are employed in the clean-up and GHG reductions are realized versus the traditional dig-and-dump approach to site clean-up.

2010 Photo of the former Kitchener Frame Building (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff)

Streamlined environmental approvals

The Made-in-Ontario Plan notes that environmental approvals should be prioritized for businesses that want to implement low GHG technology or approaches. This is the latest promise from the Ontario government to speed up the approval process.

Seasoned veterans in the environmental sector remember similar promises made the government on fast-tracked approvals. There are still those who remember the Environmental Leaders Program in which speedy approval was promised to companies that committed to above-compliance environmental activities and targets.

With respect to this latest promise on speedy approvals, the document is silent on if “speed” will be applied to the Environment Ministry review of site specific risk assessments (SSRA’s) that are submitted to the Ontario Environment Ministry for approval instead of following the generic clean-up standards.

Measures to promote healthy, clean soils

The Made-in-Ontario Plan plan commits to “revise the brownfield regulation and record of site condition guide” as part of a basket of measures to promote clean soils. Again, the document is lacking in details.

The previous Ontario government had proposed reasonable changes to the Record of Site Condition Regulations (O. Reg. 153/04). One important aspect of the proposed change is related to road-salt impacts on a property. As the regulations currently stands, road salt-related impacts can only be exempted from clean-up if it can be proven they are related to the application of de-icing salts on a public highway. Under the proposed changes to the regulations, the exemption will include road salt applied to a property ‘for the purpose of traffic and pedestrian safety under conditions of snow/ice’. This one change, if implemented, would save thousands of dollars in clean-up costs at many sites undergoing redevelopment in Ontario.

The previous Ontario government had also proposed a much-need excess soil regulation. There has been extensive consultation on the proposed regulation over a five-year period. If implemented, the regulation would address the gaps surrounding the ability for enforcement on mismanagement of excess soils in Ontario. It would also open up the opportunity for beneficial reuse of excess soil.

Canada: Environmental Issues In Expropriation

Article by Chidinma Thompson, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

A. Indirect Expropriation through Environmental Regulation

Claims for indirect expropriation may arise through environmental regulatory regimes. Where legislative schemes operate to interfere with existing property rights, such interference may constitute de facto, or indirect, expropriation. One example of a legislative regime that has been the subject of indirect expropriation claims is the federal Species at Risk Act1 (the “SARA”). Under the SARA, the Governor in Council is empowered to make emergency orders to provide for the protection of certain wildlife species.2 The emergency protection order may extend not only to Crown land, but also private property.3 The SARA provides for a limited compensation scheme. The Minister may provide for reasonable compensation for losses suffered “as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of” the emergency protection order.4 The Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to the procedures to be followed and the methods to be used to determine the compensation.5

The sage grouse order exemplifies how a SARA emergency protection order may give rise to an expropriation claim. The sage grouse order was the first emergency protection order to be issued under section 80 of the SARA. It was issued to protect the greater sage grouse population in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and came into force on February 18, 2014. The sage grouse is an endangered species under the SARA and Alberta’s Wildlife Act.6 Under the Wildlife Act it is an offence to “willfully molest, disturb, ore destroy a house, nest or den” of sage grouse. The sage grouse order restricted activities on 1,672 km2 of provincial and federal Crown lands in southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan.

A Sage Grouse (Photo Credit: Miles Tindal / Calgary Herald)

In The City of Medicine Hat et al v Canada (AG) et al,7 LGX Oil and Gas and the City of Medicine Hat, which had interests in the Manyberries oil production site that was affected by the sage grouse order, brought a judicial review and constitutional challenge of the sage grouse order at the Federal Court of Canada. The applicants successfully resisted a summary dismissal motion brought by the Crown and subsequently commenced an action at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench for $123.6 million in compensation (including accelerated reclamation costs) for de facto expropriation of existing oil and gas mineral rights, leases and rights-of-way. This case is ongoing. At this point, the Governor in Council has not made regulations with respect to compensation. The Crown pleads that the emergency protection order is regulatory and, in the alternative, that compensation under the SARA is discretionary. In the further alternative, the Governor in Council had chosen not to make regulations, and the emergency order did not have an “extraordinary impact” on the plaintiffs.

Another case was Groupe Maison Candiac Inc v Canada (AG).8 This case concerns the second emergency protection order made under the SARA, which protects the western chorus frog. The western chorus frog is listed on the SARA’s list of endangered species as a threatened species in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The emergency protection order prohibits excavation, deforestation and construction within a two km2 area in the municipalities of La Prairie, Candiac and St-Philippe, Quebec to protect the frog and its habitat. This order was the first time a SARA emergency protection order restricted development on private land.

As a result of the western frog order, Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. (“Groupe Maison”) was forced to reduce its residential development by 171 units after construction was already underway and Groupe Maison had obtained the requisite municipal and provincial approvals. Groupe Maison brought a judicial review of the emergency protection order by way of a constitutional challenge and an expropriation claim. The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that: (1) section 4(c)(ii) of the SARA is within the federal government’s jurisdiction over criminal law; and protected by the doctrine of ancillary powers, including jurisdiction over peace, order and good governance; (2) the western chorus frog order did not amount to expropriation that required compensation; and (3) the Parliament had already provided a mechanism for compensation under the SARA that applies in “extraordinary circumstances.”

In 2017, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change received three petitions to recommend to the Governor in Council for an emergency order to protect the southern mountain woodland caribou population. The Minister conducted an Imminent Threat Assessment and, on May 4, 2018, determined that the southern mountain caribou faced imminent threats requiring intervention for recovery. An emergency protection order may be forthcoming for Alberta and British Columbia. The SARA public registry and the Canada Gazette will provide updates on this matter.

B. Polluter Pays in Expropriation of Contaminated Lands

Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act9 (the “EPEA”) is another environmental protection legislation that affects expropriation claims. As one of its purposes, the EPEA adopts the “polluter pays” principle to address contamination. The EPEA includes three regulatory mechanisms with respect to contamination: (1) Part 5 Division 1 concerns the release of substances generally; (2) Part 5 Division 2 concerns contaminated sites designation; and (3) Part 6 deals with conservation and reclamation. Further, the EPEA expressly acknowledges an affected person’s recourse to court through private civil claims.10 Some of the key concepts related to the three regulatory mechanisms are considered below.

Part 5 Division 1 of the EPEA deals with the release of substances into the environment. Under section 112, the person responsible for the substance has the duty to take remedial measures with respect to any release of same.11 Environmental protection orders may also be issued to the person responsible for the substance where the release is causing, has caused or may cause an adverse effect.12

The statutory definition of “person responsible” includes: (1) owner and previous owner of substance; (2) every person who has or has had charge, management or control of the substance; (3) successor, assignee, executor, administrator, receiver, receiver‑manager or trustee of (1) to (2); and (4) principal or agent of (1) to (3).13 The “person responsible’ excludes, unless they release new or additional substances: (1) a municipality in respect of land shown on its tax arrears list, or land acquired by it by dedication or gift of an environmental reserve, municipal reserve, school reserve, road, utility lot or right of way; (2) a person who investigates or tests the land for the purpose of determining the environmental condition of that parcel; and (3) the Minister responsible for the Unclaimed Personal Property and Vested Property Act, with respect to a parcel of land to which that Act applies. Thus, it appears that the notion of “person responsible” is based on one’s relationship to the substance/release only, and not based on the cause of the release.

Part 5 Division 2 of the EPEA provides for the designation of contaminated sites. Under section 129 of the EPEA, the Director may designate a site as a contaminated site and issue an environmental protection order to a person responsible for the contaminated site. The Director must consider several factors before issuing an environmental protection order for a contaminated site, including: (1) due diligence of the owner or previous owner; (2) whether the presence of the substance at the site was caused solely by the act or omission of another person, other than an employee, agent or person with whom the owner or previous owner has or had a contractual relationship; and (3) the price the owner paid for the site and the relationship between that price and the fair market value of the site had the substance not been present.14

The “person responsible for the contaminated site” means: (1) a person responsible for the substance that is in, on or under the contaminated site; (2) any other person who the Director considers caused or contributed to the release of the substance into the environment; (3) the owner of the contaminated site; (4) any previous owner of the contaminated site who was the owner at any time when the substance was in, on or under the contaminated site; (5) a successor, assignee, executor, administrator, receiver, receiver‑manager or trustee of a person referred to in any of subclauses (2) to (4); and (6) a person who acts as the principal or agent of a person referred to in any of subclauses (2) to (5). As was the case with Division 1, the definition of “person responsible for the contaminated site” again excludes municipalities and investigators. In this case, the test is based on the relationship to the substance/release and the property.

In practice, Division 2 is rarely used. Designation will only occur as a last resort when there are no other appropriate tools. There have only been five instances of designation of a contaminated site since 1993 and no environmental protection order appears to have been issued under Division 2. Division 2 offers options otherwise unavailable, including the allocation of responsibility to present and past site owners who may have contractually assumed liability for the pollution, remedial actions plans and agreements with the Director, and the apportionment of costs of remedial work among responsible parties. The Minister may also pay compensation to any person who suffers loss or damage as a direct result of the application of Part 5 Division 2.15

Environmental contamination may affect the valuation of expropriated property. Under the Expropriation Act,16compensation for expropriation is based on the market value of the expropriated land, which is in turn “the amount realized if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer”,17 and provable damages. The determination of market value accounts for everything that is present in the site, except for the legislated exclusions found in section 45 of the Expropriation Act.

Contamination introduces issues in valuing expropriated property, given the uncertainty in liability exposure, scope, duration, risk and stigma. Below are some case law on the interaction between the expropriation of contaminated lands and the “polluter pays” principle.

In Toronto (City) v Bernardo,18 the respondent Bernardo was the registered owner of a property and permitted the corporate respondent’s scrap metal business on property rent-free by oral licence to occupy. The City of Toronto served and published notice to expropriate property. The City conducted environmental testing on property which showed contamination, and was advised that clean-up costs for property could be in range of $250,000 to $750,000. The appraised value of the property was $242,500 before taking into consideration site remediation or clean-up costs. Given the estimated cost of remediation which exceeded value of land, the City’s offer of compensation to the respondents was $1. The respondents did not request compensation hearing but refused to surrender possession. The City brought motion for order to take possession. The Ontario Supreme Court granted the City’s motion as the respondents had the opportunity to contest the City’s offer of compensation in proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and chose not to take any action to assert claims for compensation.

In Thompson v Alberta (Minister of Environment),19 the claimant had purchased land for the sum of $1 million. At the time of purchase, the land was not part of any property acquired by the Crown for a proposed transportation corridor. The Crown reviewed roadway plan within months of claimant’s purchase and determined that land was a necessary part of the corridor. The Crown expropriated land for $1,025,000. The claimant brought action for increased compensation. The action was allowed in part. The claimant was granted $1,120,000. The Crown’s valuation discounted the value of the property because of the unknown cost of filling or remediating a wetland (which is 50% of the property) for future residential development, which posed an economic challenge for a prospective purchaser. The Court found that the cost of remediation calculated by the Crown was based on premature assumption that land was to be developed in isolation with no possible cost sharing by adjacent developers. The Court, however, recognized that a discount must be applied for market value because of this possibility of remediation.

In Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu c Cour du Québec,20 the subject property included a grocery store, snack-bar and a retail marina fuel distribution outlet for vessels navigating on Chambly canal, and a gas station for road vehicles. The issue before the Court was whether the costs of decontamination should be deducted from the compensation awarded for expropriation, based on the duty to remediate. It was argued that evidence demonstrated that there was a spill onto the neighbouring property, therefore the question as to cessation of activities no longer applied, and the mandatory provisions of the EQA regarding decontamination was triggered. The Tribunal Administratif du Québec (the “TAQ”) ruled that the total remediation cost of $450,000 be paid by the owner of the property, 9092-9340 Québec Inc. (“9092”) and should be deducted from its expropriation indemnity award. The value of the expropriated property, after deduction of the decontamination costs, was established as being $31,000.


Lock 9, the southern terminus of the Chambly Canal, is located in the town of St.-Jean-Sur-Richelieu.

The Court of Quebec allowed the appeal, holding that the finding of the TAQ was unreasonable and profoundly unfair. Were it not for the expropriation, 9092 could have ceased its activity at its own time, negotiated with a willing purchaser and, based upon the projects of the purchaser, negotiated the decontamination works remaining according to the circumstances. The City deprived 9092 of its right to complete the decontamination work at the time that it deemed the most suitable to its interests and subject to conditions that would have been more favourable. By forcing 9092 to assume the costs of decontamination estimated by the City engineer, the TAQ deprived the owner of the quasi-totality of the value of the expropriated property. The City brought a judicial review application which was subsequently dismissed. The Court found that the systemic analysis undertaken by the Court of Quebec highlights the significant defects and the fragility of the TAQ ruling to assign full liability to 9092 for the estimated costs of decontamination of the property.

Case law suggests that the law is not blind to the causation of the contamination when evaluating the market value of an expropriated property that has been contaminated. Liability for the remediation of contaminated land in Alberta clearly rests with “person responsible for the substance” and, in the rare case of designated contaminated sites, “person responsible for the contaminated site.” Liability for contamination does not run with the land in Alberta.

This leads to the question of what is the intent of the law in respect of a faultless landowner for the environmental depreciation of land in the expropriation context. The principles of statutory interpretation apply to deem the legislature as knowing all the law and the necessary statutory language to give effect to its intention. The EPEA and the Expropriation Act are meant to be interpreted harmoniously as a scheme in cases of expropriation involving contamination. The Expropriation Act is a remedial statute. Accordingly, it must be given a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with its purpose.

Currently, the right of a faultless landowner to recover from a “person responsible” remediation costs in civil claims (whether under the common law or the EPEA) is a chose in action. This chose in action does not appear to be considered in the calculation of market value in expropriation. In the new era of third-party litigation funding, a chose in action for remediation costs is a valuable element that may offset some or all of the discounts associated with contaminated land, even in an open market.

Footnotes

1 Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c 29 [SARA].

2 SARA, s 80(1).

3 SARA, s 80(4)(c)(ii).

4 SARA, s 64(1).

5 SARA, s 64(2).

6 Wildlife Act, RSA 2000, c W-10.

7 The City of Medicine Hat et al v Canada (AG) et al, Federal Court of Canada File No. T-12-14. See also Federal Court of Canada, Proceeding Queries, Recorded Entries for T-12-14, online: click here.

8 Groupe Maison Candiac Inc v Canada (AG), 2018 FC 643.

9 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, RSA 2000, c E-12 [EPEA].

10 EPEA, ss 217, 219, 227-228.

11 EPEA, s 112.

12 EPEA, ss 113-114.

13 EPEA, s 1(tt).

14 EPEA, s 129(2).

15 EPEA, s 131.

16 Expropriation Act, RSA 2000, c E-13.

17 Expropriation Act, ss 41-42.

18 Toronto (City) v Bernardo, 2004 CanLII 5760 (ONSC).

19 Thompson v Alberta (Minister of Environment), 2006 ABQB 510.

20 Ville de Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu c Cour du Québec, 2017 QCCS 4832.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

This article was first published on the BLG website. It is re-published with the permission of the author.

About the Author

Chidinma Thompson is a partner in Commercial Litigation Group at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP‘s Calgary office. She practices commercial litigation and arbitration, project approvals, environmental defence and compliance advisory. Her practice covers a broad range of sectors including oil and gas, electricity, renewable energy, municipal and land development. She has experience in regulatory hearings before the Alberta Energy Regulator and its predecessors, Alberta Utilities Commission, and the Calgary Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. She has appeared before the Alberta Provincial Court, Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal.