Posts

Expanding Redwater Beyond Oil And Gas: Can Other Regulators Enforce Orders In An Insolvency?

Written by Alan Harvie, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, (Redwater). The majority ruled that a bankrupt oil company’s estate remained liable for well closure and environmental obligations in priority to the company’s creditors, including its secured creditors.

Although Redwater dealt with the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) powers to order a bankrupt oil company to close oil and gas wells, the decision can likely be used by regulators in other industries to ensure compliance with environmental and other laws.

Provable claims

The concept of a provable claim is central to Canadian insolvency law. Once insolvency proceedings start, a regulator trying to enforce a compliance order that is considered a provable claim against the insolvent company is typically stayed by the court (i.e. stopped) from enforcing it. Conversely, a non-provable claim is not stayed and can be enforced.

In Redwater, the company entered receivership proceedings and the AER ordered the company to abandon and permanently close various wells by pumping cement down the well bore, cutting and capping the top of the well and removing surface equipment so as to leave the well in a safe state in perpetuity. The receiver argued the abandonment orders were stayed and sought to sell a package of Redwater’s assets to a third party and use the proceeds to pay the secured creditor.

The matter ended up in the Supreme Court, which considered the historical test of what constituted a provable claim by a regulator in an insolvency set previously by it in Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc., namely that there must be a debt, liability or obligation to a creditor, that it be incurred before the bankruptcy and that it must be possible to attach a monetary value to the debt, liability or obligation.

The Supreme Court in Redwater noted that although a regulator can be a creditor with a provable claim, a regulator exercising an enforcement power is not always one. The court noted the AER’s abandonment orders did not require the company to pay the AER, but instead to do something, namely to permanently close the wells. It was not sufficiently certain that the AER would itself perform the well abandonments if the company failed to do so and then advance a claim for reimbursement of the costs. Indeed, the AER was not in the business of abandoning wells and had no statutory duty to do so.

The Supreme Court distinguished AbitibiBowater by noting in that case the provincial government had expropriated a number of AbitibiBowater’s properties without compensation. The company entered creditor protection and responded to the expropriation by filing a NAFTA claim for compensation. The province then issued environmental clean-up orders that the government hoped to use to set off against the NAFTA claim.

The court clearly saw the province as seeking a direct financial benefit from the clean-up orders. It pointed out the orders’ timelines were not realistic, showing the province did not intend the orders to be complied with. The company also could not access some of the properties to undertake the work due to the expropriation. The court felt the ultimate purpose of the clean-up orders was not to have the properties remediated, but to create a set-off in response to the NAFTA compensation claim. Hence, the company owed a debt to the province to which monetary value could be attached.

In Redwater, the court found the regulator was acting in a bona fide regulatory capacity and did not stand to benefit financially from the abandonment orders. Unlike in AbitibiBowater, the AER had no ulterior motives in issuing the orders. It was acting in the public interest and for the public good. It was not enforcing a debt but was instead enforcing a general law of the province.

The court found that bankruptcy was not a license to ignore the rules, and the bankruptcy trustee was bound by and must comply with valid provincial laws. Hence, the abandonment orders were not provable claims in the bankruptcy and were not stayed. The court ordered the proceeds of sale of Redwater’s assets in the bankruptcy proceeding be used to pay for the well abandonment costs to the preference of the company’s secured and other creditors.

Other regulators are likely paying attention

Regulators in other industries trying to enforce environmental protection legislation against insolvent companies are undoubtedly paying attention and considering if they can enforce their legislation in preference to an insolvent company’s creditors. It appears many have the power to do so.

For instance, Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) has the authority to issue environmental clean-up orders in response to a spill under Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act. Such orders can require the company to investigate, take any action specified, minimize and remedy the effects of a spill and restore the environment. Although AEP can in certain instances claim costs incurred in enforcing the legislation, there is no requirement for it to do so.

Similarly, in British Columbia the director under the Environmental Management Act can issue a pollution abatement order in response to a spill event to any of the person who controlled the substance that caused the spill, the person who owns or occupies the land on which the substance was located prior to the spill, or a person who caused or authorized the pollution. The director may also issue a remediation order against one or more responsible persons for a site to undertake remediation.

Likewise, under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act a director with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks may order a person who discharges a contaminant into the environment to repair injury or damage to land, water, property, animal life, plant life or human health. The order can include requiring the person to construct and install devices, equipment and facilities, and to develop and implement plans to remediate contamination. Although the ministry may require a polluter to pay the ministry’s costs and expenses in responding to a spill, the ministry does not have to do so.

When faced with an environmental problem caused by an insolvent company, it is reasonable to expect provincial and federal environmental regulators to try to use their enforcement powers such that they fall under Redwater rather than AbitibiBowater by crafting their enforcement orders so as not to create a provable claim.

It is also reasonable to assume regulators concerned with issues besides environmental ones in the Alberta oil and gas industry are taking a close look at Redwater. Regulators of mining, forestry, transportation, agriculture, fishing and numerous other regulated industries and activities in Canada come to mind.

Secured creditors across Canada should take note

Time will tell if Redwater will be applied more broadly than to environmental obligations of an insolvent oil company. We assume regulators will try to use Redwater when faced with an insolvent company with regulatory obligations.

Secured creditors in many other instances and industries in Canada should consider what the potential shift in traditional priorities to a bankrupt’s estate might mean to repayment of their secured loans. Borrowers should consider the implications of lenders less willing to provide financing. It is also likely that lenders will want a comprehensive understanding of a borrower’s regulatory obligations and will expand their lending due diligence to understand a borrower’s assets retirement obligation and require stricter covenants in loan agreements.

The ultimate outcome of a borrower in a regulated industry becoming insolvent will be governed by the facts of each case and the particular enforcement strategies regulators use to prevent enforcement orders being provable claims and having their orders stayed upon an insolvency. It is clear, however, that Redwater will have future implications to lenders, other creditors and borrowers in many industries.


About the Author

Alan Harvie has practised energy and environmental/regulatory law since 1989 and regularly deals with commercial, operational, environmental and regulatory issues, especially for the upstream oil and gas, energy, waste disposal and chemical industries. He is a member of our energy and environmental departments. 

Mr. Harvie also has significant legal experience acting for the oil and gas industry in commercial transactions and regulatory matters, including enforcement proceedings, common carrier and processor applications, forced poolings, downspacings and holdings, rateable take, and contested facility, well and pipeline applications. He has also dealt extensively with commercial, environmental and regulatory issues concerning thermal and renewable power plants, electrical transmission and distribution lines, tourism and recreation projects, forestry, mining, agriculture, commercial real estate, industrial facilities, sewage plants, hazardous waste landfills and treatment facilities, transportation of dangerous goods and water storage reservoirs. 

About Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP

Norton Rose Fulbright is a global law firm. We provide the world’s preeminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have 3800 lawyers and other legal staff based in more than 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

How the SCC Decision in Redwater Case could Change the Role of Environmental Orders in Ontario Insolvency Proceedings

by Erin D Farrell, Jessica Bioly and Haddon Murray, Gowlings

1. Introduction

The potential conflict between federal insolvency law and provincial environmental law that came to a head in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd (“Redwater“) was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC“) on January 31, 2019 in a split 5-2 decision.[1] Specifically, Redwater addresses whether environmental orders are binding on an insolvent estate, or if a trustee can disclaim unprofitable lands subject to the environmental orders, treating the regulator as an unsecured creditor.

In a contested decision, the SCC considered a test it had previously established to determine whether a regulatory order was enforceable against the debtor’s estate as opposed to merely constituting a provable claim in the bankruptcy (the “Abitibi  Test“, described below). If a regulatory order was found to meet theAbitibi Test and therefore found to be a claim provable in bankruptcy, then it would be stayed and treated as any other unsecured debt. The SCC in Redwater determined that the Abitibi Test had been interpreted too broadly by the lower courts, therefore narrowing the circumstances where such an order would be reduced to a claim provable in bankruptcy. The majority of the SCC in Redwater significantly expanded the circumstances in which costly end-of-life environmental or other regulatory orders will effectively trump secured and other creditors in an insolvency. The SCC further held that the regulator should not be characterized as acting as a “creditor” in this case where the regulator sought to enforce an insolvent company’s end of life obligations and consequently does not have a claim provable in bankruptcy.

In arriving at its decision, the SCC held that there was no conflict between the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA“) [2] and Alberta’s environmental regulatory statutes that would trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy. The SCC overturned the decisions of both the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench[3] and the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal,[4] both of which held that there was a conflict between the applicable federal and provincial acts that found that provincial environmental law, to the extent that it created a practical super‑priority in favour of the regulator, to be inoperative.

The Attorney General of Ontario intervened in the case and supported the Alberta regulator’s position that its environmental orders should continue to operate in bankruptcy. Although Ontario’s submissions focused on its provincial oil and gas industry, all corporations that could be subject to regulatory orders, including owners and operators of contaminated lands, may be affected.

The decision will have serious consequences for creditors, many of whom are innocent suppliers and investors, but will be left paying for environmental remediation.

2. Background

Redwater Energy Corporation (“REC“) was an oil and gas company operating in Alberta. The Alberta oil and gas industry is regulated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER“). The AER regulates the oil and gas industry by issuing licenses for each oil and gas well or pipeline, and then by imposing on each licensee conditions that control all aspects of the operation, disposition and eventual shutting-in of the licensed property.[5] It issues licenses, approvals, permits, orders, decisions and directions pursuant to authority derived from statutes such as the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“OGCA“) and the Pipeline Act (“PA“).[6]

In Alberta non-producing wells do not need to be “abandoned”[7] (plugged) and reclaimed[8] (remediated) within any set timeframe.[9] The many non-producing wells often sit for years or even decades.[10] They are also commonly transferred to subsequent licensees, who may or may not be sufficiently capitalized to perform their end‑of‑life obligations. Like many oil and gas companies ceasing operations, REC held licenses for both non-producing oil and gas wells.

In the Redwater case, REC became insolvent and was put into receivership by its senior secured creditor, ATB Financial. Upon learning of REC’s receivership, the AER took view that:

  1. it was not a creditor;
  2. environmental obligations were not “claims provable in bankruptcy”, and that accordingly the environmental obligations of REC were unaffected by the insolvency proceedings;
  3. the receiver was legally obliged to discharge REC’s environmental obligations “prior to distributing any funds . . . to creditors, secured or otherwise”; and
  4. it would not approve any transfers of REC’s (valuable) oil and gas assets unless it was satisfied that both the transferor and transferee would be in a position to fulfill all environmental obligations and the proceeds of sale were paid to the AER as security for the end‑of‑life obligations.

At the time of the receivership, REC had both producing and non-producing wells. The receiver concluded that the cost of the end-of-life obligations for the non-producing wells would likely exceed the sale proceeds of the producing wells. As such, the receiver renounced or disclaimed the non-producing wells pursuant to s. 14.06(4) of the BIA, taking possession and control of only the productive wells. Nonetheless, the AER issued orders requiring REC to abandon and reclaim, “for environmental and public safety reasons”, the non-producing assets that the receiver had renounced.[11] Subsequently, REC was assigned to bankruptcy and the receiver was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee. The trustee took the position that, as a result of the disclaimer, it had no obligation to comply with the AER’s orders in relation to the renounced wells and attempted to maximize recovery for creditors through sale of the profitable wells.

The AER, along with the Orphan Well Association, a non-profit organization operating under authority delegated by the AER,[12] sought a declaration that the trustee’s disclaimer was void, and an order compelling compliance by the trustee with the abandonment and remediation orders issued by the AER. The AER’s position was, in essence, that the environmental orders were regulatory in nature and continued to bind the trustee during the bankruptcy notwithstanding the consequences this may have for the bankrupt’s creditors. The trustee brought a cross-application for approval of the sale of assets, and a ruling on the constitutionality of the AER’s position.

The main constitutional issue was whether the AER’s abandonment orders and certain provisions of Alberta’s applicable environmental legislation conflicted with the federal BIA – which would result in certain provisions of the provincial environmental legislation being held in abeyance and the BIA overriding.

In order to answer this question, the SCC considered the following issues:

  1. whether disclaiming property under s. 14.06(4)(b)(ii) of the BIA has the effect of removing the obligation to comply with the order from the bankrupt estate, or simply eliminating the trustee’s personal liability in respect of the order; and
  2. whether environmental orders are provable claims in an insolvency proceeding. If they are, then the environmental order is treated like any other claim in the proceeding – the order is stayed and it generally ranks as an unsecured claim (except for certain statutory security interests). The alternative is that the environmental order is considered as a regulatory obligation that continues to be enforceable during the insolvency proceeding and consequently, effectively has priority over all other claims and, in the case of a restructuring, continues after the restructuring.[13]

The trustee in Redwater argued that (a) while the estate would continue to be liable for the end‑of‑life obligations associated with disclaimed property, the trustee would not be obliged to perform them, and (b) the environmental orders were properly characterized as provable claims and the regulator was attempting to defeat the priority scheme set out in the BIA. For both of these reasons the trustee argued that the provincial statutes that gave rise to the environmental orders conflicted with the federal BIA, and accordingly the federal law was paramount.

3. The Abitibi Test

The characterization of environmental obligations as provable claims has previously been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., (“AbitibiBowater“)the SCC considered whether certain orders issued under Newfoundland’s Environmental Protection Actwere “claims” for the purpose of the CCAA.[14] The SCC established a three-part test for whether a regulatory obligation is a provable claim in an insolvency proceeding:[15]

  1. there must be a debt, liability or obligation to a creditor,
  2. it must be incurred before the debtor’s bankruptcy, and
  3. it must be possible to attach a monetary value to the debt, liability or obligation.

Meeting the test would mean that a regulatory order would be stayed and treated the same as other unsecured debts.

The Abitibi Test has been applied by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Nortel Networks Corp. (Re),[16](Nortel) and Northstar Aerospace, Inc. (Re) (“Northstar“)[17]. Both cases concerned clean-up orders for legacy contaminated sites owned by insolvent corporations.

In Nortel, the Ministry of the Environment (“Ministry“)[18] issued remediation orders after the corporation’s CCAA filing. These orders dealt with a number of properties and would have required certain of the debtor companies (referred to collectively as “Nortel“) to expend approximately $18 million to remediate the properties. Nortel brought a motion before the CCAA judge seeking a declaration that the Ministry orders were monetary in nature and thus, were stayed by the CCAA proceedings, meaning it could cease complying with the orders. It also sought a declaration that the Ministry’s claims had to be dealt with as part of the CCAA. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the key issue was the third branch of the Abitibi Test; specifically, the Court of Appeal held that in order for a monetary value to be attached to the debt, it had to be sufficiently certain that the Ministry would perform the remediation work itself and then have a claim for indemnification against Nortel. With the exception of one property, the Court of Appeal found it was not sufficiently certain the Ministry would perform the remediation itself and thus, the claim was not stayed and the regulatory orders had to be complied with, depleting assets from the estate that would otherwise be paid to Nortel’s creditors.

By contrast, in Northstar, the Ontario Court of Appeal found it was sufficiently certain that the Ministry would perform the remediation work itself, given that the Ministry had already taken steps towards conducting the remediation itself, there was no funding available to the debtor or the trustee to do remediation work, and there were no other parties who could be required to perform the work. Consequently, the Ministry’s order was found to be a provable claim that was stayed by the insolvency proceeding – to be determined and paid in the same manner as all other creditors of the estate. Subsequently, the Ministry chose to pursue Northstar’s directors and officers personally.

4. Judicial History

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

In his May 19, 2016 decision (the “Chambers Decision“), Chief Justice Wittmann of the Alberta Court Queen’s Bench found that there was a conflict between the provincial and federal laws. Specifically, he found that requiring a trustee to comply with abandonment orders issued pursuant to provincial legislation in relation to renounced licensed assets triggered the doctrine of federal paramountcy as there was an operational conflict between s. 14.06(4) of BIA and the provincial law. The obligation to comply with the AER orders required payment of, or the posting of security for, the abandonment costs to the AER in priority to all others, including secured creditors. This frustrated the primary purposes of the BIA, as its distribution scheme would be upset.

Chief Justice Wittman stated that it was conceded by the OWA and AER that the first and second branches of the Abitibi Test were met.[19] However, the AER argued that the fact that there were monetary consequences to its orders was not determinative of the third branch of the test.[20] Chief Justice Wittman disagreed and found that there was no funding for the receiver to carry out the work, the receiver was not in possession of the renounced properties and therefore could not carry out the work, and that there were no other parties who could be required to carry out the work. Further, he found either the AER or OWA would probably carry out the work, and therefore that, although not expressed in monetary terms, the AER orders were “intrinsically financial,”[21] and sufficiently certain.[22] If the regulator’s actions indicate that, in substance, it is asserting a provable claim within the meaning of federal legislation, then that claim can be subjected to the insolvency process.[23]

Alberta Court of Appeal

The majority of the Court of Appeal (consisting of the Honourable Mr. Justice Frans Slatter and the Honourable Madam Justice Frederica Schutz) affirmed the Chambers Decision. In considering the constitutional issues, the Alberta Court of Appeal stated that under the principle of cooperative federalism, the court will first attempt to interpret and apply the two provisions in harmony with each other, and only if that fails will paramountcy be invoked.[24] However, the majority found that the regulatory orders of the AER were in operational conflict with section 14.06 of the BIA and that the underlying sections of the OGCA and PA frustrated the federal purpose of the BIA in managing the winding up of insolvent corporations.

The majority held that a trustee is entitled to abandon or renounce oil and gas assets encumbered with environmental obligations and that the AER’s demand for security for remediation diverted value from the bankrupt estate. This was reason enough to classify the claims of the AER as financial in nature, thereby making it a “creditor” whose claims are subject to the priorities prescribed by the BIA.

As it did for the Chambers hearing, AER conceded that the first two branches of the Abitibi Test were met: an obligation existed to the AER as a creditor, and the obligation had arisen prior to the conclusion of the insolvency.[25] Therefore the only real issue was the third branch.

In finding that the regulator’s orders constituted a claim provable in bankruptcy, the majority applied the Abitibi Test and found that the effect of the abandonment orders was to elevate the priority of environmental claims and upset “the priorities of the BIA.”

The majority found that AER’s claims met the test for a provable claim in s. 14.06 of the BIA and did not have higher or special “super priority” over the claims of secured creditors. Under the proper interpretation of the BIA, the AER could not insist that substantial parts of the bankrupt estate be set aside in satisfaction of the environmental claims in super priority over the claims of secured creditors.

In her dissent, The Honourable Madam Justice Sheilah Martin, prior to her elevation to the Supreme Court of Canada, disagreed with the majority, found no conflict between the legislation, and noted that the environment was an area that called for “co-operative federalism.”[26] Justice Martin noted that that the “cradle to grave” approach to regulation now stopped at “insolvency,” moving the “polluter pays” policy to a “third party pays” system. Justice Martin found that license obligations are public duties, not debts owed to the regulator. Abandonment and reclamation are necessary for public health and safety, reducing the environmental impact of drilling activities, and ensuring private landowners are not left with unused and potentially unsafe well sites on their land.

Ultimately, Justice Martin held that there was no conflict between the legislative schemes and that both schemes could continue to co-exist. In examining the third branch of the Abitibi Test, Justice Martin distinguished the nature of the remedial work being performed in Redwater from AbitibiBowaterNorteland Northstar:[27]

…. During the course of its operations, various contaminants spilled on the lands owned by Abitibi and the government issued orders and tried to have those lands transferred to the government through legislation. As the Supreme Court noted, when such conditions arise, “regulatory bodies sometimes have to perform remediation work”. The decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Nortel and Northstar Aerospace Inc., Re, 2013 ONCA 600, 234 A.C.W.S. (3d) 642 (Ont. C.A.), both decided after Abitibi, also dealt with the same type of industrial contamination on land owned by the debtors, and the same kind of clean-up order. Contrast that with the licensing and regulatory regime here. The abandonment obligations are not an unknown or unexpected event; all parties involved know these obligations will arise at the end of the life of the well.

Given the foregoing, Justice Martin found that the third branch of the Abitibi Test had not been made out as there was insufficient certainty that remediation work would be done or that a claim for reimbursement would be made.

In significant contrast to the majority justices and Chief Justice Wittman in the Chambers Decisions, Justice Martin also held that the first branch of the Abitibi Test had also not been met because the regulatory body was not a creditor of the insolvent company.[28] Quoting Laycraft CJA in Northern Badger,[29] Justice Martin held that the cost of abandoning licensed wells “was one of the expenses, inherent in the nature of the properties themselves, taken over for management by the Receiver,” and that the cost was not owed to the regulator, or to the province.

5. The Supreme Court of Canada Decision

The SCC decision was released January 31, 2019. The SCC, split 5:2 in favour of granting the regulator’s appeal. The intervenors supporting the AER and OWA in its arguments included Greenpeace, Ecojustice and the Attorney General of Ontario, among others. The majority decision, penned by Chief Justice Wagner, found:

  • the regulator’s use of its statutory powers did not create a conflict with the BIA so as to trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy;
  • section 14.06(4) of the BIA permits a trustee to avoid any personal liability in respect of environmental obligations for a property it has disclaimed, however those obligations remain a liability of the insolvent estate; and
  • not all environmental obligations enforced by a regulator will be claims provable in bankruptcy. Further, the regulator’s orders in this case were not claims provable in bankruptcy, and the priority scheme in the BIA was not upended. Thus, no conflict was caused by the trustee’s status as a licensee under Alberta legislation. Alberta’s regulatory regime can coexist with and apply alongside the BIA.

The majority of the SCC also reframed its own Abitibi Test to determine whether a regulator’s action amounts to a claim provable in bankruptcy with respect to the first and third branches of the test.

The first branch of the test requires that there must be a debt, liability or obligation to a “creditor”. The SCC agreed with the regulator and Martin JA and held that the Court of Queen’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal (as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal in Nortel) had incorrectly, and overly broadly, interpreted the circumstances in which a regulator will be considered a creditor. The majority rejected the concessions made by the regulator on the creditor issue at the lower courts, noting that “concessions of law are not binding.” In Nortel and Northstar the courts applied the Abitibi Test to find that the first branch of the test was always made out when a regulator exercises its statutory enforcement powers against a debtor. The SCC found that where the regulator acts in a bona fide regulatory capacity in the public interest and for the public good, and is not seeking a pecuniary benefit, it is acting in a regulatory capacity rather than as a creditor. Echoing Justice Martin’s statement, the SCC held that where the public is the beneficiary of the enforcement action (and not the government’s coffers as in AbitibiBowater), the first branch of the test will not be made out. Rather, in Redwater the majority found that the orders were made in the public interest and for the public good. Therefore the regulator was not a creditor of REC as the public was the beneficiary of the environmental obligations. The majority rejected the trustee’s argument that the first “creditor” branch of the Abitibi Test would be satisfied whenever a regulator exercises its enforcement powers against a debtor. The majority instead agreed with the submissions of Ontario that the creditor part of the test would be meaningless if it were not possible for the test to turn on whether a regulator is a creditor of the bankrupt.[30]

The Supreme Court went on to discuss the third branch of the Abitibi Test, or the “sufficiently certain” branch. The majority noted that the regulatory end-of-life obligations did not directly require REC to make a payment to the regulator, but rather obliged REC to “do something”.[31] The majority rejected the characterization of the orders as “intrinsically financial” applied by the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal, finding that this application would be too broad. This would result in a provable claim being established even where the existence of a monetary claim in bankruptcy was merely speculative.[32] The third branch of the test was the focus of the courts analysis in Nortel and Northstar. The Supreme Court confirmed the approach of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Nortel, finding that ongoing environmental remediation obligations may be reduced to monetary claims only where: (i) the regulator has performed the remediation work and advanced a claim for reimbursement, or (ii) it is sufficiently certain that the province will do the work and seek reimbursement. The Supreme Court stated that Northstar could be distinguished, because in that case the Ministry had already stepped in to conduct the remediation.

In a detailed dissent that is sure to be cited in future cases, Justices Moldaver and Côté found that both an operational conflict and frustration of purpose existed between the provincial legislation and the federal BIA, and thus invoked the doctrine of federal paramountcy. Consistent with the lower court decisions, the dissenting judges found that Alberta’s statutory regime does not recognize the disclaimers by trustees of assets as lawful by virtue of the fact that receivers and trustees are treated by regulators as licensees who cannot disclaim assets. The minority was of the view that, because of the unavoidable conflict the provincial legislation should be held inoperative to the extent that it does not recognize the legal effect of the trustee’s disclaimers. The minority also applied the Abitibi Test and found that, as in the AbitibiBowatercase itself, the regulator was a creditor and “most environmental regulatory bodies can be creditors…and that government entities cannot systematically evade the priority requirements of federal bankruptcy legislation under the guise of enforcing public duties.”[33]

6. Implications for Ontario

Insolvency Proceedings

The Redwater decision has significantly expanded the circumstances in which an environmental order, or any regulatory enforcement action for that matter, will not be provable in an insolvency proceeding. The decision will impact companies with environment liabilities in the following ways:

  • There may be a chilling effect on the availability of financing in industries where environmental liabilities are likely, because secured creditors will take a backseat to environmental liabilities. Lenders may expand environmental due diligence requirements and increasingly demand stricter covenants from businesses regarding the state of environmental liabilities. We may also see a decrease in the number of lenders offering debtor-in-possession loans to fund the insolvency proceedings and ongoing operations of an insolvent company. While these loans were traditionally provided a super-priority charge against the assets of the debtor, it is possible that such a charge would also take a backseat to environmental liabilities.
  • Professionals may begin to demand indemnities for the payment of their fees from creditors before agreeing to insolvency mandates. While trustees are protected from personal liability under subsections 14.06(2) and (4) of the BIA, where environmental liabilities exceed the value of the estate, it is possible, although not clear, that insolvency professionals might not be paid.
  • It may become more challenging to retain key employees during the insolvency period. When a company enters insolvency proceedings it is often important to keep certain key employees working through the insolvency period in order to maximize value and ensure the debtor can be sold as a going concern. In order to retain these employees, it is common in restructuring proceedings (and occasionally in receiverships) to obtain a super-priority charge for a bonus payment plan for key employees (referred to as a KERP) provided they continue to work through the insolvency period. As with the above charges, the ability to retain key employees is brought into question by the possibility that all those funds will be spent complying with environmental orders.

Industries with the Potential for Environmental Liabilities

Anxiety among lenders in Alberta’s oil and gas industry, where the number of non-producing wells is rapidly escalating, could signal rapid market decline. If lenders, given the uncertainty, are unwilling to provide additional credit, many more wells may end up in the orphan system, with fewer industry participants contributing to the fund. Many commentators have noted that as a result of the Redwaterdecision, companies with potential significant environmental liabilities may have difficulty finding new capital or restructuring.

In Ontario, the operator of a well that is no longer producing should plug the well within 12 months after it is taken out of use,[34] and return the well site to its original condition no later than 6 months from the plugging date.[35] There is no such requirement in Alberta, despite proposed legislation. In many industries in Ontario, closure, reclamation and anticipated end-of life remediation obligations are also secured by financial assurance (usually through a letter of credit). For example, mining operations with closure plans or landfills that might require remediation and monitoring upon closure would normally be subject to financial assurance requirements by the regulator. Consequently, even if the business were to become insolvent, the environmental obligations would be secured by financial assurance. In those cases, assuming that the financial assurance numbers accurately capture the risk, lender anxiety should be reduced.  

Contaminated Sites and Brownfield Development

In Ontario, owners and those in management or control (including former owners or those previously in management or control) of an environmentally contaminated or brownfield site, as well as persons who caused or permitted a discharge of a contaminant, may be subject to regulatory orders for both on and off-site work (including investigation, delineation, and in some cases, remediation). The characterization of such environmental orders was litigated in Northstar and Nortel, which involved Ontario properties subject to Ministry orders that were owned or previously owned by insolvent companies.

The outcome of Nortel would likely be the same under the new Redwater decisionThe Supreme Court in Redwater cites the Northstar case in support of the proposition that where the Ministry steps in to conduct remediation, the third branch of the Abitibi Test is made out. However, it is possible that the Supreme Court’s approach to the first branch of the Abitibi Test could mean that in certain circumstances, even where the Ministry has demonstrated that it will conduct the remediation itself, the Ministry is still considered a bona fide regulator and thus, the order would not be a provable claim.

Unless there is legislative change, it is clear that the Redwater decision will have implications on the way that regulatory “clean-up” orders are treated during an insolvency, particularly in cases where the facts fall somewhere between Nortel and Northstar. We expect the Ministry (and other environmental stakeholders) will take the position that, except in unusual circumstances, regulatory orders are not stayed during insolvency and must be complied with before the distribution of the insolvent corporation’s assets to other creditors. Where an insolvent estate does not have significant assets, environmental costs may mean there is nothing left for creditors.

In some cases, the decision may be welcome news to stakeholders such as directors and officers of insolvent companies, other persons who may also be obliged to address the contamination and neighbouring property owners because they will not have to bear the burden of the clean-up. In Northstar,for example, the Ministry pursued the directors and officers personally after the remediation obligations of the company were found to rank alongside the claims of unsecured creditors. For creditors, however, the Redwater decision may reinforce the recent trend in environmental law of displacing polluter pays for “third-party pays”, particularly when that third party has deep pockets.

For corporations that own or operate a number of brownfield properties or have significant historical environmental liability for previous industrial activities, the insolvency calculus may change. Creditors, even secured creditors, are less likely to see full recovery in cases where there is environmental contamination the Ministry wants addressed.

The Redwater decision confirms that the Ministry will not be seen as a creditor where it acts in a regulatory role. However, the Supreme Court’s comments demonstrate that even post-Redwater, if the Ministry steps in to do the work itself, then it becomes a creditor and its order will be relegated to a claim provable in bankruptcy. This leaves the Ministry in a difficult position when requiring clean-up work from a company that may become insolvent. If the risk to human health or the environment is so significant that the Ministry must step in to do the work, the Ministry may prejudice its position in the insolvency. If the Ministry does not take steps to do the work and the corporation becomes insolvent, the estate will have to fund the remediation. This creates a potentially perverse incentive where allowing the risk to remain for the interim ultimately improves the Ministry’s position.

Environmental Receivers

The implications of the Redwater decision will encourage creative solutions to deal with remediation during insolvency proceedings. One such solution is the appointment of an environmental receiver, such as the one used in the Outboard Marine insolvency. In that case, an environmental receiver (an environmental consulting firm) was appointed by the court to manage the fund for remediation and to conduct the Ministry-ordered clean-up during the insolvency process. The receivership order authorized the environmental receiver to implement environmental remediation activities, to retain consultants, to apply for permits, licenses and approvals as may be required, to receive funds from the disbursement receiver, and to disburse funds to pay approved environmental remediation costs. There may be other situations where it would be “just or convenient”[36] to appoint an environmental receiver to address irreparable harm or imminent danger to health, safety, private and public property, wildlife, natural resources and compliance with environmental laws caused by ongoing and historical contamination of source sites.[37]

Appointing an environmental receiver, along with a regular disbursement receiver, to manage remediation in tandem with winding up may also help to balance environmental obligations and creditors. Such a creative solution may only be appropriate when sufficient assets exist and the efficiency or certainty gained will merit the extra administration costs. However, there may be tension between the insolvency process, which has among its goals an expeditious resolution, and environmental remediation, which may require many years of investigation or delineation work before a remedial approach can be pursued.

7. Conclusion

At first glance the Redwater case appears to be good news from both an environmental and cooperative federalism perspective. However, in addition to the lender and insolvency uncertainty in the oil and gas industry noted by many commentators, the Redwater decision may complicate insolvency proceedings in any industry with an inherent environmental impact. While Ontario’s smaller oil and gas extraction industry is regulated differently and may not face the same pressures as the industry in Alberta, the Redwater decision will have legal, economic and environmental implications on owners and users of potentially contaminated property, those helping them wind down operations, and other stakeholders.


[1] Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., 2019 SCC 5 (“Redwater SCC“) Note that, while this article concerns the impact of the Redwater decision on industrial operations in Ontario, our colleagues in Alberta have written about the impact of the decision from their perspective as counsel for the trustee/respondent on the appeal.

[2] Although Redwater was a bankruptcy and accordingly, the court analyzed the case under the BIA, analogous issues arise with respect to restructurings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RCS 1985, c C-36 (“CCAA”). This paper will refer to “insolvency proceedings” generally as proceedings instituted under either act. Note that this relationship is not perfect as there are different purposes for the CCAA as compared to the BIA and accordingly, it is possible that a court would reach a different conclusion with respect to paramountcy under the “frustrating the purpose of the act” branch of the paramountcy test. However, the courts have generally interpreted the statutes harmoniously.

[3] Redwater Energy Corporation (Re) 2016 ABQB 278 (“Chambers Decision“)

[4] Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited 2017 ABCA 124 (“Redwater ABCA“)

[5] Redwater ABCA at para 11.

[6] Redwater ABCA at paras 11 and 124.

[7] SCC Decision at para 16: Abandonment” refers to “the permanent dismantlement of a well or facility in the manner prescribed by the regulations or rules” made by the Regulator (OGCA, s. 1(1)(a)). Specifically, the abandonment of a well has been defined as “the process of sealing a hole which has been drilled for oil or gas, at the end of its useful life, to render it environmentally safe” (Panamericana de Bienes y Servicios S.A. v. Northern Badger Oil & Gas Ltd., 1991 ABCA 181, 81 Alta. L.R. (2d) 45 (“Northern Badger“), at para. 2). The abandonment of a pipeline refers to its “permanent deactivation . . . in the manner prescribed by the rules” (Pipeline Act, s. 1(1)(a)).

[8] “Reclamation” includes “the removal of equipment or buildings”, “the decontamination of buildings . . . land or water”, and the “stabilization, contouring, maintenance, conditioning or reconstruction of the surface of the land” (EPEA, s. 1(ddd))

[9] See for the following Globe and Mail articles for a discussion of attempts in Western Canada at introducing timelines for cleanup of dormant oil and gas wells: December 13, 2018 “B.C. to be first among western provinces to tackle inactive wells” by Jeff Lewis; and November 30, 2018 “B.C. joins Alberta in pledge to impose cleanup timelines on oil, gas wells” by Jeff Lewis and Renata D’aliesio

[10] As the AG of Ontario noted in its submissions, in Ontario the operator of a non-producing oil or gas well is expected to plug the well (abandon in Alberta) within 12 months after it is taken out of use. [O. Reg. 245/97: Exploration, Drilling and Production under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.12 “O.Reg. 245/97“), s. 19; Oil, Gas and Salt Resources of Ontario, Provincial Operating Standards (“Provincial Standards“), ss. 11.01-11.14.] Operators are also required to return the well site to its original condition no later than 6 months from the plugging date. [Provincial Standards, s. 11.13]. In practice this does not always happen.

[11] Redwater ABCA at para 6.

[12] The Orphan Well Association is funded by a levy imposed by the AER, security deposits that licensees have been required to post, and some limited government funding. ABCA decision at para 22.

[13] In a bankruptcy (or liquidating CCAA), the amount available to regulatory obligations that are in substance provable claims is subject to their priority ranking. Generally, these obligations will be unsecured except to the extent they are secured by a specific charge under section 14.06(7) of the BIA. Previously any regulatory or environmental obligations that were not provable in bankruptcy may continue to exist in theory, but typically the burden of those obligations essentially fell on the government. Accordingly, there is an increased incentive for the regulator to extract whatever value it can from the bankrupt estate during its administration

[14] Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., [2012] 3 SCR 443, 2012 SCC 67 (“AbitibiBowater“)

[15] Chambers Decision at para 139 citing Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. 2012 SCC 67.

[16] Nortel Networks Corp. (Re), 2013 ONCA 599 (CanLII), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 35642 (17 April 2014) (“Nortel“)

[17] Northstar Aerospace, Inc. (Re), 2013 ONCA 600 (CanLII) (“Northstar“)

[18] Now knowns as the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks.

[19] Chambers Decision at para 164.

[20] Chambers Decision at para 164.

[21] Chambers Decision at para 173.

[22] Chambers Decision at para 173.

[23] Chambers Decision at para 177.

[24]Redwater ABCA at para 24.

[25] Redwater ABCA para 73.

[26] Redwater ABCA Martin dissent at para 107

[27] Redwater ABCA dissent at paras 178-179

[28] Redwater ABCA dissent at para 185

[29] Panamericana de Bienes y Servicios S.A. v. Northern Badger Oil & Gas Ltd., 1991 ABCA 181, 81 Alta. L.R. (2d) 45, 117 A.R. 44 (Alta. C.A.), leave to appeal denied [1992] 1 S.C.R. (S.C.C.)

[30] Redwater SCC at para 124

[31] Redwater SCC at para 139

[32] Redwater SCC at para 146

[33] Redwater SCC at para 236, citing Deschamps J. in AbitibiBowater at para 27.

[34] O.Reg. 245/97, s. 19; Provincial Standards, ss. 11.01-11.14

[35] Provincial Standards, s. 11.13

[36] See Courts of Justice Act, s. 101 provides that “a receiver or receiver and manager may be appointed by an interlocutory order, where it appears to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so.”

[37] Sherry A Kettle “The Creative Receivership” 2016 Annual Review of Insolvency Law 18


NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.


This article is republished with the permission of the authors. It was first published on the Gowling WLG website.

About the Authors

Erin Farrell is a partner in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office, practising in the firm’s advocacy department. Her practice focuses on a variety of commercial litigation matters, including class actions, product and professional liability, environmental law and municipal liability. Erin represents professionals in both civil and administrative matters, and has defended a number of Canadian and foreign clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device and manufacturing sectors in litigation. She also has extensive experience in the banking sector, advising clients on a range of litigation matters, including a variety of motions and injunctions.

Jessica Boily is an associate in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office, practising in Environmental Law. Jessica works with clients to navigate and resolve complex disputes, including advocating for clients in appeals of environmental orders and civil litigation involving contaminated sites. She guides clients through regulatory inspections and investigations, including defending clients charged with federal, provincial and municipal environmental and regulatory offences. Jessica regularly appears before the Environmental Review Tribunal and all levels of courts in Ontario on motions, applications, trials, hearings, appeals and judicial reviews. She also advocates for her clients in mediations and arbitrations. 

Haddon Murray is an associate lawyer in Gowling WLG’s Toronto office, practising in the areas of restructuring and insolvency and corporate commercial litigation. Haddon represents corporations and their directors on claims ranging from standard litigation to complex restructurings. He has experience appearing before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Commercial List, as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Court Upholds Decision That The Ministry May Order Current And Former Owners, And Tenants To Delineate Contamination That Has Migrated Off-Site

Article by Stanley D. Berger and Albert M. Engel

Fogler, Rubinoff LLP

On September 4, 2018, Ontario’s Divisional Court released its decision in Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010, dismissing an appeal of a September 1, 2017 decision of Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal (Hamilton Beach Brands Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2017 CanLII 57415 (ON ERT)) in which the Tribunal upheld the Ministry’s jurisdiction to order current and former owners and tenants of a contaminated property to delineate contamination that has migrated to off-site properties. The Tribunal’s decision also found that the Ministry had jurisdiction to make an order regarding existing, ongoing and future adverse effects, that the adverse effects do not have to be related to the potential off-site migration of a contaminant, nor must the contaminant be on an orderee’s property at the time the order is made and that the order may require work on-site and off-site to address an adverse effect.

In upholding the Tribunal’s decision, the Divisional Court found that there is no geographical constraint limiting orders to the source property of the contamination and quoted the Tribunal’s observation that “contamination and adverse effects are not constrained by the boundaries of a property, either in initial discharge or because of migration”. The Divisional Court also found that the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Ministry’s order-making jurisdiction is consistent with the Brownfield regime since protection from orders is extinguished under the regime when contaminants migrate from a property that was subject to that regime.

The former appliance manufacturing plant on McFarland Drive that is the property in question in the  Hamilton Beach Brands Canada, Inc. v. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, 2018 ONSC 5010 (Phtoto Credit: Jason Parks/Picton Gazette)

The order provisions of s.18(2) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19 were at issue in this case. This is the first Divisional Court decision interpreting the geographic extent of the powers set out in s.18(2). The decision confirms that the powers are expansive and should be considered by any current, former or prospective owner or tenant of a contaminated property. We will continue to monitor this case should it be appealed further.

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.

________________________

About the Authors

Mr. Berger has practiced regulatory law for 37 years. He represents nuclear operators and suppliers, waste management operators, renewable energy operators, receivers-in-bankruptcy, municipalities and First Nations. He was an Assistant Crown Attorney in Toronto for 8 years, Senior counsel and Deputy Director for Legal Services/Prosecutions at the Ministry of the Environment for 9 years and Assistant General Counsel at Ontario Power Generation Inc for 14 years.
He is the author of a quarterly loose-leaf service published by Thomson Reuters entitled the Prosecution and Defence of Environmental Offences and the editor of an annual review of environmental law.
Mr. Berger was the President of the International Nuclear Law Association (2008-2009) and the founder, and President of the Canadian Nuclear Law Organization.

Mr. Engel practice all aspects of Environmental and Renewable Energy Law. He advises clients in the development and operation of renewable energy projects, regulatory compliance and civil causes of action.He represent clients before Ontario’s Environmental Review Tribunal and all levels of court. He assist clients with defences to environmental and other regulatory prosecutions, appeals of environmental orders and civil litigation involving environmental issues including contaminated lands.

Mr. Engel has a Masters degree in Environmental Studies and is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Environmental Law.

Environmental Consultant’s Disclaimer of Liability to Vendor effective against Third Party Purchaser

by Stanley D. Berger, Fogler Rubinoff

On July 23, 2018 the Court of Appeal for Newfoundland and Labrador in the case of Community Mental Health Initiative Inc. v. Summit Lounge Ltd. 2018 NLCA 42 upheld summary judgment dismissing a purchaser’s claim against two engineering companies (consultants) alleging negligence in the conduct of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment performed for the vendor. The agreement between the consultants and the vendor and the final report both indicated that the assessment was prepared solely for the benefit of the vendor and that the consultants accepted no responsibility for any damages suffered by any third party. Significantly, the plaintiff-purchaser had knowledge of the disclaimer, having been provided with a copy of the final report by its real estate agent prior to the closing of the transaction. The Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Edgeworth Construction ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Associates Ltd. [1993] 3.S.C.R. 206 as well as decisions from appeal courts in Ontario Wolverine Tube (Canada) Inc. (1995) , 26 O.R. (3d) 577 and B.C., Kokanee Mortgage M.I.C. Ltd. 2018 BCCA 151 and summarized the legal principles as follows: (at par. 23) “… an express disclaimer of liability can be an effective bar against a claim by a third party who relied on work in the knowledge of the disclaimer. Permitting third parties to rely on reports which are expressly protected by a disclaimer would undermine the ability of contracting commercial parties to govern their own affairs.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS?

The long established principle of privity of contract i.e. that the rights and obligations in a contract apply only to the parties to the contract have been further tested by this decision. For engineering consultants, the decision highlights the importance of exacting express disclaimer clauses restricting responsibility for the reporting information to the party retaining them. For purchasers of real estate, it reinforces the necessity of obtaining indemnities from the vendor for undiscovered contamination or if that is not realistic, retaining an independent environmental consultant to verify any consulting reports given to them by the vendor.

This article was first published on the Fogler Rubinoff LLP website.

________________________________

About the Author

Mr. Stanley Berger serves as the Partner at Fogler, Rubinoff LLP. Mr. Berger joined the law firm of Fogler Rubinoff on July 4, 2013. Before joining Fogler Rubinoff, he served for 14 years as Assistant General Counsel to Ontario Power Generation Inc (OPG). In that capacity he provided legal services on licensing, environmental assessment, regulatory compliance, liability, security, decommissioning and waste management to the Nuclear Division of OPG.  Mr. Berger provided strategic legal advice and representation on aboriginal litigation and participated in First Nation settlement negotiations. Prior to joining OPG, he served as the Deputy Director of the Law Division for Prosecutions for the Ontario Ministry of Environment. In that capacity he managed the prosecution staff and helped shape prosecution policy. 

Couple admits illegally storing 4,500 tons of hazardous waste in warehouse

As reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a husband and wife recently plead guilty to a U.S. federal charge and admitted improperly transporting 4,500 tons of hazardous waste and storing it in a warehouse near St. Louis, Missouri.

The couple, both in their 60’s, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to a misdemeanor charge of placing someone in danger of death or serious bodily injury from a hazardous waste.

Green Materials LLC facility in Missouri (Photo Credit: Robert Patrick, Post Dispatch)

Their company, Missouri Green Materials LLC, Missouri Green Materials LLC stored a large quantity of spent sandblasting materials inside a warehouse located in the town of Berger, approximately 70 miles west of St. Louis. They couple admitted that they arranged for the transport and storage of the hazardous waste from Mississippi, and failed to tell both the trucking companies that hauled the waste and the personnel that unloaded it of the danger. Their storage facility was not properly permitted was not registered as a permitted hazardous waste storage or recycling facility. It is important to note that there are many waste removal services around to dispose of this for you. Firms range from Bulldog Rubbish Removal to a wide-variety of other waste removal services. (Bulldog Rubbish Removal is a great example, they maybe located in Melbourne, Australia but… with great customer reviews, these are the companies to make sure you keep an eye out for).

The sandblasting waste materials are considered to be hazardous because they contain amounts of certain metals, including cadmium, that exceed regulatory limits established by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

The materials were stored in a warehouse in a flood plain for more than four years. There are no indications of any release of the materials from the warehouse.

When it comes to storing products in a warehouse you need to ensure that all of the resources kept are correct under the laws of the area. It should also be kept to the correct health and safety regulations to ensure none of the workers are hurt. If everything is kept safely then it will also increase productivity. If you would like to increase productivity then you should take a look at Fishbowl Inventory.

The couple have agreed to pay $1.5 million to the U.S. EPA for the costs of dealing with the waste. They could face probation or a sentence of six months behind bars for the crime under federal sentencing guidelines.

The source of the sandblasting waste was for a site in Mississippi. An Ohio company, U.S. Technology Corp had been buried the waste. The company was repeatedly ordered by regulators to remove it.

In 2016, the U.S. EPA and U.S. Technology signed a consent agreement whereby the company agreed to remove the waste from Green Material’s facility in Missouri and test the site for soil contamination. According to prosecutors, this work was never performed.

U.S. Technology and president Raymond Williams, 71, both pleaded not guilty in the case. A hearing has been scheduled to change both pleas later in June.

Some sandblasting waste is classified as hazardous

BC Seeks Feedback on Second Phase of the Spill Response Regime

WRITTEN BY:

Bennett Jones LLP

David Bursey, Radha Curpen, and Sharon Singh

[co-author: Charlotte Teal, Articling Student]

Phase-2 to BC’s Spill Response Regime

The British Columbia government is moving forward with the second phase of spill regulations, announcing further stakeholder engagement on important elements, such as spill response in sensitive areas and geographic response plans. The government will also establish an independent scientific advisory panel to recommend whether, and how, heavy oils (such as bitumen) can be safely transported and cleaned up. While the advisory panel is proceeding, the government is proposing regulatory restrictions on the increase of diluted bitumen (dilbit) transportation.

The second phase engagement process follows the first phase of regulatory overhaul introduced in October 2017, when the Province established higher standards for spill preparedness, response and recovery.

Photo Credit: Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press

Feedback and Engagement

The Province is planning an intentions paper for the end of February 2018 that will outline the government’s proposed regulations and will be available for public comment.

In particular, the Province will seek feedback on:

  1. response times, to ensure timely responses to spills;
  2. geographic response plans, to ensure that resources are available to support an immediate response that account for the unique characteristics of sensitive areas;
  3. compensation for loss of public and cultural use of land, resources or public amenities in the case of spills;
  4. maximizing application of regulations to marine spills; and
  5. restrictions on the increase of dilbit transportation until the behaviour of spilled bitumen can be better understood and there is certainty regarding the ability to adequately mitigate spills.

What this means for industry

This second phase was planned follow up to the October 2017 regulations. Many of the proposed regulatory changes have been part of ongoing stakeholder discussions for the past few years. However, the prospect of permanent restrictions or a ban on the increased transportation of dilbit off the coast of B.C. and the prospect of further regulatory recommendations from the independent scientific advisory panel creates uncertainty for Canada’s oil sector.

The government’s emphasis on environmental concerns related to bitumen and its recent initiatives to restrict oil exports to allow time for more study of marine impacts will further fuel the national discourse on how to export Canada’s oil to international markets from the Pacific Coast.

____________________

This article was first published on the Bennett Jones LLP website.

About the Authors

Key Developments in Environmental Law in Canada from 2017

A book on the developments in environmental law in Canada during 2017 was recently published by Thomson Reuters.  Edited by Stanley D. Berger of Fogler Rubinoff LLP, the book includes a number of interesting chapters related to contaminated sites and the issues raised in the Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson (“Midwest”) court case.  The Midwest case is part of a possible trend in Canada toward awarding damages based on restoration costs rather than diminution in value.  If nothing, else the Midwest Case has introduced uncertainty to the law of damages in contaminated sites cases.

In the chapter written by Natalie Mullins, a litigation partner in the Advocacy and Environmental groups in the Toronto office of Gowling WLG, on the evolution and current state of law on damages in contaminated sites, she states that despite being explicit about awarding compensatory damages only under section 99 of the Alberta Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) and not at common law, the Alberta Court of Appeal may have implied that restoration costs are the default measure of damages in contaminated sites cases.  She also explores some other critical issues that have arisen post-Midwest, such as:

  • Whether diminution in value is still relevant to the measure of damages;
  • What it means to “restore” a real property;
  • How the court can take a proactive role to ensure that awards made to benefit the environment actually meet that objective; and
  • How defence counsel might prevent similar awards in the future, and how plaintiff’s counsel might use the case to obtain significant damages for their clients.

An interesting point raised by Ms. Mullins in her contaminated sites chapter is that in recent court cases, highlighted with Midwest, court decisions may be paving the way for plaintiffs to recover very significant damage awards for the contaminated of their sites that grossly exceed their actual loss and, in certain circumstances, may be completely unwarranted.

Ms. Mullins questions if the Midwest decision has created the potential for litigants to profit off purchasing contaminated sites and for defendants to face double jeopardy following judgment at trial.

The book is available at online for $144 (Cdn.).