Posts

Department of National Defence fined $175,000 under Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

On June 22, 2020, the Canadian Department of National Defence pleaded guilty to one charge of contravening the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations. The Department was sentenced in the Provincial Court of Alberta in St. Paul and fined $175,000 for committing an offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The fine will be directed to the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund, where it will be used to advance environmental and conservation projects often in the same community in which the offence was committed.

In addition to the fine, the Court ordered the Department of National Defence to complete a third-party environmental audit of the Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake and the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range, including a review of the Department’s environmental-management systems to ensure compliance with environmental legislation.

The Department of National Defence Cold Lake Air Base is the busiest fighter base in Canada. It provides general purpose, multi-role, combat capable forces in support of domestic and international roles of Canada’s Air Force.

An investigation by Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers revealed that the Department of National Defence operated a storage tank system for which an identification number had not been issued. To ensure compliance and reduce the risk of releases of petroleum products into the environment, the Regulations require the owner or operator to identify their storage tank system and obtain an identification number for their system from the Minister of the Environment.

The purpose of the Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations is to reduce the risk of contaminating soil and groundwater due to spills and leaks of petroleum products from storage tank systems.
The Storage Tank Systems for Petroleum Products and Allied Petroleum Products Regulations establish requirements for systems under federal jurisdiction.

Welland Canal Terminal Operator fined $50,000 for Environmental Protection Act Violation

Port Weller Marine Terminal Inc., located in Port Colborne, Ontario was recently convicted of one violation under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and was fined $50,000 plus a victim surcharge of $12,500 and was given six months to pay the fine.  The conviction relates to the discharge of cement dust that migrated off-site affecting local residential properties.

The conviction relates to activities that occurred  on or about July 28, 2016 and ending on or about August 3, 2016.  On July 28, 2016, the Ontario Environment Ministry was notified that clinker dust had migrated off the terminal site and an investigation indicated that despite Port Weller Marine’s efforts to contain the dust, a quantity was carried off-site and fell onto residential properties in the area. The company was unaware of the discharge at the time.  An investigation resulted in charges being laid, which resulted in one conviction.

Port Weller Marine Terminal Inc. operates a terminal on the Welland Canal which is part of the St. Lawrence Seaway. At the time of the violation, the company was under contract to unload vessels carrying cement clinker, which had been imported by a Port Weller Marine client.  Clinker is a component of cement and is used in cement manufacturing and can become caustic when wet, potentially causing burns to eyes and skin.

 

CarMax Settles Lawsuit related to Unlawful Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Seventeen District Attorney’s in California recently settled an environmental protection action against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. The settlement was based on the unlawful handling and disposal of various hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The action was filed in Orange County Superior Court.

Waste inspections conducted at various CarMax locations in the seventeen Counties uncovered systemic violations of the management and disposal of hazardous waste items and confidential customer information.

“Today’s settlement is a win for the environment,” stated Alameda District Attorney Nancy O’Malley in a news release. “I want to make it very clear to any business operating in Alameda County and the state of California: there is no excuse for improper disposal of hazardous waste. You put us all at risk when you pollute our soil and our waterways. The state as well as local district attorneys will continue to work together to investigate and bring to justice businesses that ignore our important environmental protection laws.”

Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County District Attorney

CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC. is an automotive retailer that operates more than 190 dealerships in at least 28 states, including California. In the ordinary course of business, CarMax handles, transports, stores, manages, uses and disposes of hazardous materials. Additionally, CarMax generates regulated quantities of hazardous waste from its automotive inspection, service and repair departments. Numerous inspections by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control along with local environmental regulators found that CarMax facilities were out of compliance with the hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws.

District Attorney Investigators from several counties conducted undercover inspections of CarMax’s trash containers, which revealed the illegal disposal of hazardous auto body sanding dust, sanding pads, automotive paints, clear coats, solvents, non-empty aerosols, other hazardous substances used during the auto body repair process, and confidential customer information.

In accordance with the Hazardous Waste Control Law and Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, the stipulated judgment mandates training, reporting and compliance with the regulations on hazardous materials, and hazardous wastes. The settlement totaling $ 1,600,000 requires CarMax to pay $1,000,000 in civil penalties and $300,000 for investigative costs. CarMax will also make an additional payment of $300,000 to fund supplemental environmental projects furthering consumer protection and environmental enforcement in California. CarMax was cooperative throughout the investigation and implemented training and compliance programs at each of its facilities.

The case was brought in conjunction with the District Attorney’s offices of Orange, Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Kern, Ventura, Sacramento, Placer, San Diego, Solano, Sonoma, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Contra Costa counties, where CarMax facilities are located.

Posted on Jun 11, 2020

Canadian Report on Environmental Fines and Penalties in 2019

The Environmental Insurance Group at Berkley Canada recently released there latest report on Environmental Fines and Penalties: 2019 Update Report which covers all of Canada.  The report summarizes the use of fines and penalties by regulators across Canada and explains how environmental insurance may respond to the risk.

The report acknowledges that Canada has historically used fines and penalties sparingly compared to Europe or the United States. Between 1991 and 2009, the average total value of fines and penalties levied in Canada was $1.4 million per year.  In late 2014, this changed dramatically.  That year, Environment and Climate Change Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. EPA), issued a penalty of $7.5 million against Bloom Lake General Partners (a subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources).  The penalty arose out of breaches to the Canadian Fisheries Act and Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.

While fines and penalties are designed to encourage compliance with environmental legislation, they are generally enacted under a strict liability framework.  This results in them often being imposed in response to an accident or unintended event.

US Relaxation of Environmental Rules in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic – The Implications for Canada and Mexico

Written by Joseph Castrilli, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association

In a move that has implications for international arrangements with Canada regarding protection of the North American environment, the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, citing the coronavirus pandemic as its justification, has announced that it will temporarily not seek penalties against companies that violate monitoring, reporting, and other obligations under US federal environmental laws. In a policy statement issued on March 26, 2020, the agency indicated that it will exercise “enforcement discretion…for noncompliance covered by this temporary policy and resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic” if the regulated community takes the steps set out in the policy.

Steps Under the Relaxation Policy

The steps under the policy require the regulated community to: (1) act responsibly to minimize effects and duration of any noncompliance; (2) identify the nature and dates of the noncompliance; (3) identify how COVID-19 was the cause of the noncompliance, the decisions and actions taken in response, including best efforts to comply and return to compliance; (4) return to compliance; and (5) document the information, actions, and conditions specified in steps 1-4.

Regulated Activities Covered by the Policy

The agency’s enforcement discretion under the policy covers: (1) routine compliance monitoring and reporting by regulated entities (the policy indicates that “EPA does not expect to seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that COVID-19 was the cause of the noncompliance and the entity provides supporting documentation to the EPA upon request”); (2) settlement agreement and consent decree reporting obligations and milestones (the policy adopts the same position as in point number (1), above, but notes that consent decrees are still subject to independent judicial oversight); and (3) facility operations (the policy indicates that it applies to facility operations impacted by COVID-19 that may create acute risk or imminent threat to human health or the environment, result in air emission control, wastewater, or waste treatment system or equipment failure that may result in exceedances of enforceable limits, cause hazardous waste generation transfer, or animal waste feeding operation compliance, delays, or other noncompliance, all of which are generally to be covered by steps 1-4, above, except for imminent threats which also will require EPA consultation with state or tribal governments).

How the Policy Has Been Viewed in the United States

As reported in the media, the relaxation of environmental measures has been both assailed (“an open license to pollute…and abject abdication of the EPA mission to protect our well being” – Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator in Obama administration) and defended (“a very straightforward and sensible guidance” – Grant Nakayama, EPA Office of Compliance in Bush administration) by legal, regulatory, and regulated communities in the United States. Others suggested that the issue was not so much the policy itself as how it will be implemented, particularly in the context of air pollution from industrial facilities located predominantly in low income communities where at-risk populations historically under stress from air pollutants that exacerbate asthma, breathing difficulty, and cardiovascular problems now also face respiratory threats posed by a virus that attacks the lungs.

Implications for Canada

Despite the policy’s direct impact in the United States, there are significant implications for Canada (and Mexico) as well. First, there are a myriad of cross-border environmental problems a policy such as this could exacerbate. Air emissions from the Ohio Valley have long had significant impacts in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. Superfund hazardous waste sites along the Canada – United States border, such as in the Niagara area, have long had significant implications for the integrity of the shared waters of the Great Lakes. Water pollution discharges from the state of Washington impact the Salish Sea, the estuary formed by inland waters with southern British Columbia that connect to the Pacific Ocean primarily through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Second, there are a variety of pacts between Canada and the United States that the policy could ride roughshod over:

• The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 (Article IV, section 2) that requires that neither country should cause water pollution in its waters which will cause injury to health or property in the other country and the companion Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 2012, which provides for a regional mechanism to achieve the Treaty’s goals in the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem;

• The Canada – United States Air Quality Agreement, signed in 1991, with the goal of reducing air emissions that cause acid rain, which was expanded in 2000 to reduce transboundary smog emissions; and

• The environmental side agreement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (as amended) commits Canada, Mexico, and the United States to ensuring that their laws and regulations provide for high levels of environmental protection and that they are effectively enforced through measures that include compliance monitoring and reporting (Articles 3 and 5).

Whether viewed as a waiver of monitoring and reporting requirements with respect to emissions or discharge limits or, more ominously, as a waiver of compliance with the limits themselves for the duration of the pandemic, this is not good news for the environment or public health in North America especially in the midst of a pandemic caused by a virus that attacks the respiratory system of its victims. It is also not clear whether Canada (or Mexico) were consulted by the EPA before this policy went into effect (it is retroactive to March 13, 2020). Coupled with the major de-regulation push the EPA has been engaged in over the past few years, the policy seems all of a piece with the worst impulses of those who want to de-construct the administrative state. We can do better than turn the clock back to the dark ages of environmental non-regulation. In the midst of a pandemic, stopping the spread of bad ideas would be a good place to start, including ensuring they are not imported to Canada.


About the Author

Joseph F. Castrilli is counsel to the Canadian Environmental Law Association in Toronto. He is a member of the Ontario and British Columbia Bars, is certified as a specialist in environmental law by the Law Society of Ontario, and has appeared before all levels of court on environmental matters, including the Supreme Court of Canada. He also has taught environmental law courses and seminars at Queen’s University, University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School at York University.

 

Ontario: Waste Processing Company Fines Increased to $170,000 for Environmental Protection Act Violations

The Ontario Environment Ministry recently announced that an appeal court varied the sentence of an Ontario waste processing company and increased the fine from $140,000 to $170,000. The $30,000 fine increase reflected the anticipated cost of an embedded audit. The victim fine surcharge also increased from $35,000 to $42,500. The sentencing court also vacated the Order requirement that the company conduct the embedded audit.

The appeal court ruling stems from two separate matters in which an Ontario waste processing company, Quantex, was convicted of violations related to permitting waste to pass from its control without accurately completing a manifest, for transferring waste subject to land disposal restrictions without giving notice to the receiver, and for permitting the emission of an air contaminant to an extent that it may cause personal discomfort.  The offences occurred in 2016.

The company was originally convicted in 2018.  The Ontario Court of Justice granted the Crown’s appeal of the sentence that had been imposed on June 26, 2018 after a guilty plea, and increased the fine from $140,000 to $170,000, plus victim fine surcharge.

On June 26, 2018, Quantex was convicted of three violations and was fined a total of $140,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $35,000 with 2 years to pay. The court also issued a probation order requiring the company to retain an independent auditor to conduct an embedded audit of some of the company’s waste management practices.

In December 2018, when the embedded audit was to begin, Quantex advised the Crown that it had sold the facility. It subsequently became apparent that the company had sold the facility prior to being sentenced in June 2018 and that Quantex had provided inaccurate information to the sentencing court. Therefore, the earlier sentencing had been conducted on the basis of inaccurate information.

At the time of the violations, Quantex Technologies Inc. operated a hazardous and liquid industrial waste transferring/processing site in Kitchener under ministry approval.  In the first matter, between November 2015 and January 2016, Quantex accepted hazardous wastes which were bulked together and shipped to another waste processing/transfer facility. Ministry inspection indicated that the waste manifest did not accurately reflect the waste classifications and that Quantex had not notified the receiver that some of the waste was subject to land disposal restrictions. As a consequence, the receiving facility was not aware that some of the waste had classifications that were not approved under the company’s ministry approval.

In the second matter, in August 2016, Quantex employees were transferring liquid industrial and/or hazardous wastes from storage totes into a tanker trailer on-site, and the truck’s vacuum pump and exhaust was being discharged into the air. During the transfer period, neighbours experienced burning and irritated eyes, a chlorine-like odour and difficulty breathing. The occurrence was reported to Quantex, which ceased the operation immediately.

The Environment ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch investigated and laid charges resulting in three convictions.

$1.2 million Fine for Solvent Spill in Alberta

Drever Agencies Inc. was recently fined $1,250,000 in Wetaskiwin Provincial Court for an offence under the Canadian Fisheries Act. The company pleaded guilty to a charge of depositing a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish. The fine will be directed to the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund.

The incident which led to the fine occurred in August 2017. Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers responded to a report of a solvent spill on a commercial property in Wetaskiwin. A number of dead fish were observed in an unnamed creek that flows into the Battle River. An investigation determined that approximately 1800 litres of Petrosol solvent leaked from a storage tank owned by Drever Agencies Inc. and entered the creek. Through laboratory analysis, it was confirmed that the solvent was deleterious (harmful to fish).

Wetaskiwin is a city of 12,000, approximately 70 kilometres south of Edmonton. The city name comes from the Cree word wītaskiwinihk, meaning “the hills where peace was made”

As a result of the conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

Undated Photo of Drever Agencies Facility (Source: Drever Agencies Web Site)

 

Crystal Geyser Gushes $5 Million in Hazardous Waste Fines

Written by Dawn DeVroom, IDR Environmental Services

The recent federal case against the company that bottles Crystal Geyser Natural Alpine Spring Water proves that the improper handling of hazardous waste can be costly.

Recently, CG Roxane pled guilty in U.S. District Court to unlawful storage of hazardous waste and unlawful transportation of hazardous material. The plea agreement to the two counts came with a $5 million criminal fine.

The charges stemmed from allegations that over the last 15 years, CG Roxane has dumped wastewater contaminated with arsenic into a man-made pond at the company’s Olancha, California, facility. Samples taken by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board revealed arsenic levels were eight times higher than legally allowed.

This case underscores the importance of proper identification, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. It also stresses the consequences of not working with the right certified company to ensure your business is meeting all state and federal regulations. Not doing so can result in substantial fines and negative publicity that can have a disastrous effect on your business.

Improper Waste Disposal Can Be Costly

hazardous wasteFailure to manage hazardous waste streams according to state and federal guidelines can bring unwanted consequences for both the environment and your company.

As CG Roxane discovered, costly criminal fines often accompany cases in which companies are found guilty of improper hazardous waste management. Two other companies may find themselves in trouble from this case as well. CG Roxane hired United Pumping Services Inc. and United Storm Water Inc. to transport and treat the wastewater. Both could face fines of up to $8 million if found guilty for their role in the case.

Other multimillion-dollar companies have faced similar consequences. Companies like FedEx, Rite Aid and Walmart have been fined millions of dollars over the past few years for improper waste management practices. Walmart, in particular, agreed to pay more than $81 million after pleading guilty in 2013 to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act.

In addition to fines, improper waste disposal can be a nightmare for a company’s public image, and worse, become a risk to public safety. Spills, fires, explosions and exposure to toxic chemicals can stem from the mishandling of hazardous waste.

How To Ensure Proper Waste Management

It is critical for hazardous waste generators to ensure compliance with regulations by providing ongoing training opportunities for employees and by working with an experienced hazardous waste disposal company.

The onus falls on you to ensure any hazardous waste you generate is disposed of properly. That responsibility does not end once your waste is removed from company property. Under the Resource and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), you are legally and financially responsible for the appropriate treatment and proper disposal of that waste … from cradle to grave.

Choosing the wrong vendor can prove costly, too.

So, how do you properly vet a company for the best business practices and avoid the nightmare scenarios described above?

1. Begin with a thorough background check of a vendor.

In addition to checking state and federal licenses, set up an interview with the vendor. Ask questions such as:

  • Do you have a Dun & Bradstreet report or a bank letter of credit?
  • Do you meet minimum insurance requirements and have coverage for accidents?
  • Do you have adequate personnel that are properly trained and certified?
  • Can you provide a statement of qualifications (SOQ)?
  • How do you deal with unknown chemicals?
  • Are you legally permitted for the transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste materials?
  • Can you provide a list of references on past related projects?

More ideas for questions to ask a vendor can be found in our article, What Manufacturers Must Know About Hazardous Waste Disposal.

2. Confirm the experience of any vendor being considered.

A hazardous waste generalist, for example, is used to working in different environments and has a broad base of experience working with different toxic chemicals.

Check to make sure the vendor includes these services:

  • Identification of waste streams by profiling and testing them
  • Development of site-specific plans, including training and emergency preparation
  • Transportation to recycling and disposal sites
  • Manifest preparation and any other paperwork that must be completed

3. Look for a certified hazardous waste disposal company that is consultative.

In other words, look for a company that offers a hazardous waste walk-through program.

Areas of focus should include:

  • Waste manifesting
  • Hazardous waste procedures
  • Waste storage evaluation
  • Emergency readiness
  • Hazardous waste evaluation
  • Employee training procedures

A waste walk-through program will help you stay atop any regulatory changes at the local, state and federal levels.

Better Safe Than Sorry

The improper handling of hazardous waste can have devastating effects on the environment, community and your business.

Many companies that do not take the proper precautions to ensure the waste they generate is properly disposed of find themselves tangled up in a legal mess for years. At the end of that mess is rarely a positive outcome for the company.

Working with a certified hazardous waste disposal service will help you avoid costly fines and a tarnished public image, as well as allow you to be assured that the hazardous waste your company generates is being transported and disposed of safely and legally.


About the Author

Dawn DeVroom is the CFO at IDR Environmental Services based in California. The company specializes in hazardous waste disposal.

Hazardous Waste Enforcement: U.S. EPA and Electronics Recycling Facility Enter into Consent Agreement

Written by Walter Wright Jr.Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and AERC Acquisition Corporation dba AERC Recycling Solutions (“AERC”) entered into a February 25th Consent Agreement (“CA”) addressing alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) regulations (which the State of Virginia has adopted). See Docket No. RCRA-03-2020-0070.

The CA provides that AERC performs electronics and universal recycling at a facility (“Facility”) in Richmond, Virginia.

The Facility is described as consisting of 40,000 square feet of building space that has been in operation as an electronics recycler since 2013. The Facility is stated to have begun recycling waste lamps in 2014.

AERC is stated to have submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) May 6, 2014, and May 30, 2017, notifications indicating the Facility is a small quantity generator of hazardous waste at the Facility. Such notices are also stated to have indicated the Facility was a large quantity handler of universal waste along with being a transporter and a transfer facility.

The Facility is stated to not have a permit for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.

An inspector from EPA is stated to have undertaken a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (“CEI”) of the Facility on August 22, 2017. The purpose of the CEI was stated to be the examination of the Facility’s compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA and associated Virginia regulations.

EPA is stated to have sent an information request letter to AERC to acquire additional information. AERC responded to the request in a letter dated September 16, 2019.

A Request to Show Cause was also provided to AERC to which EPA and AERC met to discuss alleged violations.

The CA alleges the following violations have occurred at the Facility:

  • Operating a treatment, storage, and disposal facility without a permit or interim status
  • Failure to label or mark clearly a number of containers of hazardous waste lamps with the prescribed words
  • Boxes stored in a manner that prevented the inspector from observing whether they were properly labeled and dated
  • Failure to mark containers of waste lamps with the date upon which each period of accumulation began
  • Failure to mark with the date upon which accumulation began, or otherwise track accumulation start date for certain containers of hazardous waste lamps
  • Failure to maintain a tracking system documenting the length of time the containers are accumulated on site
  • Failure to meet certain requirements of the Generator Accumulation Exemption
  • Failure to keep containers storing waste lamps closed except when it is necessary to add or remove waste
  • Failure to minimize risk of release, and failure to immediately contain all releases of waste lamps

The CA assesses a civil penalty of $10,000.

The CA also provides that AERC will within 90 days of the effective date of the document conduct an electronics recycling event within and in coordination with the City of Richmond, Virginia. The cost of such event will be no less than $40,000.

A copy of the CA can be downloaded here.


About the Author

Walter Wright has more than 30 years of experience in environmental, energy (petroleum marketing), and water law.  His expertise includes counseling clients on issues involving environmental permits, compliance strategies, enforcement defense, property redevelopment issues, environmental impact statements, and procurement/management of water rights. He routinely advises developers, lenders, petroleum marketers, and others about effective strategies for structuring real estate and corporate transactions to address environmental financial risks.

Ontario aerosol manufacturer fined for violating Environmental Emergency Regulations

Written by Paul ManningManning Environmental Law

As of August 24, 2019, the Environmental Emergency Regulations, 2019 replaced the existing Environmental Emergency Regulations, which require industry to take steps to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the accidental release of harmful chemicals.

The Regulations require that any person who owns, has the charge of, manages, or controls a regulated substance at or above certain quantities to notify Environment and Climate Change Canada. For higher-risk facilities, an environmental emergency plan must be prepared, brought into effect, and exercised.

On November 12, 2019, K-G Spray-Pak Inc. of Concord, Ontario pleaded guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to two offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including one count of violating the Environmental Emergency Regulations and one count of failing to comply with an environmental protection compliance order. The company was ordered to pay a fine of $170,000.

In February 2017, Environment and Climate Change Canada’s enforcement officers launched an investigation, which revealed that K-G Spray-Pak Inc., a manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of aerosol products, had failed to comply with an environmental protection compliance order issued in July 2016.

Environmental protection compliance orders are issued by Environment and Climate Change Canada’s enforcement officers to put an immediate stop to a violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to prevent a violation from occurring, or to require action be taken to address a violation.

The company was subsequently charged when it failed to implement and test environmental emergency plans within the prescribed time limit specified in the compliance order.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2019/11/ontario-aerosol-manufacturer-fined-for-violating-the-canadian-environmental-protection-act1999.html

This article has been republished with the permission of the author. It was first published here .

This article is provided only as a general guide and is not legal advice. If you do have any issue that requires legal advice please contact Manning Environmental Law.


About the Author

Paul Manning is the principal of Manning Environmental Law and an environmental law specialist certified by the Law Society of Ontario. He has been named as one of the World’s Leading Environmental Lawyers and one of the World’s Leading Climate Change Lawyers by Who’s Who Legal.
Paul advises clients on a wide range of environmental law issues and represents them as counsel before tribunals and the courts. His practice focuses on environmental, energy, planning and Aboriginal law.