British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.), (2005) 329 N.R. 6 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court of Canada |
Case Date | Thursday January 20, 2005 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2005), 329 N.R. 6 (SCC);329 NR 6;247 DLR (4th) 404;2005 SCC 1;36 BCLR (4th) 233;208 BCAC 4;[2005] 1 SCR 3;[2005] 3 WWR 589 |
B.C. Hydro v. Env. Appeal Bd. (2005), 329 N.R. 6 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2005] N.R. TBEd. JA.015
North Fraser Harbour Commission et al. (appellants) v. Environmental Appeal Board et al. (respondents)
(29971)
Indexed As: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
January 20, 2005.
Summary:
The Deputy Director of Waste Management made an order under s. 27.1 of the Waste Management Act identifying each of six entities as a "responsible person" for the remediation of a contaminated site in Vancouver. Certain of the entities applied to add B.C. Hydro as a "responsible person" under the order. The Deputy Director ruled that B.C. Hydro could not be found to be a "responsible person". The entities appealed. The Environmental Appeal Board allowed the appeal, finding B.C. Hydro to be a "responsible person". B.C. Hydro applied under the Judicial Review Procedure Act for certiorari to quash the Board's decision.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported at [2000] B.C.T.C. Uned. 271, dismissed the application. B.C. Hydro appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, in a judgment reported at (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 94; 303 W.A.C. 94, allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Deputy Director. The entities appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal for the reasons stated by Rowles, J.A., in dissent. B.C. Hydro was capable of being a person responsible.
Company Law - Topic 7072
Fundamental changes and shareholders' rights - Amalgamation - Effect of - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8062.1 ].
Pollution Control - Topic 8062.1
Land - Waste disposal - General - Contaminated site - Persons responsible (incl. apportionment of fault) - Part 4, Division 3, of the Waste Management Act provided for the "remediation" of a contaminated site by a "responsible person" - B.C. Electric was conceded to be responsible for contamination of a Vancouver site between 1920-1957 - B.C. Electric amalgamated with the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and B.C. Power Commission in 1965 to form B.C. Hydro, following which it was "declared to be dissolved" by special statute - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, held that B.C. Hydro could not be named as a "responsible person" under s. 26.5 of the Act by reason of the acts of B.C. Electric - The Supreme Court of Canada held that B.C. Hydro could be a "responsible person" for the reasons stated by Rowles, J.A., in dissent, who held that the terms of the Amalgamation Agreement made B.C. Hydro liable for the liabilities of its pre-amalgamation entity (B.C. Electric) - Liability was not limited to pre-existing liabilities existing at the time of amalgamation.
Pollution Control - Topic 9317
Enforcement - General - Clean-up - Cost of - Liability for - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8062.1 ].
Pollution Control - Topic 9346
Enforcement - Orders - Persons responsible - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8062.1 ].
Counsel:
Michael P. Carroll, Q.C., and Monika B. Gehlen, for the appellants;
Elizabeth J. Rowbotham and Nancy E. Brown, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia;
John R. Singleton, Q.C., and David G. Perry, for the respondent, BC Hydro and Power Authority;
Margot A. Venton and Robert V. Wright, for the intervenor, Friends of the Earth et al.
Solicitors of Record:
None disclosed.
This appeal was heard on January 20, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On January 20, 2005, McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment orally in both official languages for the Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Table of Cases
...13 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 3, 12 C.E.L.R. (3d) 1, [2005] S.C.J. No. 2 ........................................................................... 151 British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., [2004......
-
Table of cases
...12 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 SCR 3, 12 CELR (3d) 1, [2005] SCJ No 2 ........................................................................................... 159 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd, 200......
-
Table of Cases
...12 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 SCR 3, 12 CELR (3d) 1, [2005] SCJ No 2 ............................................................................... 153 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd, [2004] 2 SCR 74......
-
R. v. F.M., 2020 BCSC 120
...witness, including the accused, the trial judge is entitled to consider the totality of the evidence given by that witness: R. v. P.E.C., 2005 SCC 1, at para. V. Analysis – Count 1 [83] The issue is whether the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. In practical terms, ......
-
R. v. F.M., 2020 BCSC 120
...witness, including the accused, the trial judge is entitled to consider the totality of the evidence given by that witness: R. v. P.E.C., 2005 SCC 1, at para. V. Analysis – Count 1 [83] The issue is whether the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. In practical terms, ......
-
Weatherford Canada Ltd. et al. v. Corlac Inc. et al., (2010) 370 F.T.R. 54 (FC)
...Co. , [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411; British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board) , [2005] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2005 SCC 1." [216] National Oilwell Incorporated (NOI) is the ultimate parent of the amalgamated NOC. NOC's financial results are reported as part of......
-
Victory Motors (Abbotsford) Ltd. v. Actton Super-Save Gas Stations Ltd., 2021 BCCA 129
...Hydro and Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), 2003 BCCA 436 at paras. 30-34 (rev’d on another grounds 2005 SCC 1). [132] That case dealt with what was then the WMA 1996. Justice Newbury referred to the two consequences of s. 27.1 (EMA s. 48 remediation orders) ......
-
Round v. MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. et al., 2012 BCCA 456
...Power Authority v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.) (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 94; 303 W.A.C. 94; 17 B.C.L.R.(4th) 210; 2003 BCCA 436, revd. [2005] 1 S.C.R. 3; 329 N.R. 6; 208 B.C.A.C. 4; 344 W.A.C. 4; 2005 SCC 1, refd to. [para. Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2009] B.C.A.C. Uned. 70; 96 ......
-
Precautionary Tale? BC Environmental Appeal Board Says 'Polluter-Pays' And 'Precautionary' Principles Not Applicable To The Permitting Process Under The BC Environmental Management Act
...sites (and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), 2005 SCC 1), this appeal did not involve "contaminated sites" within the meaning of the EMA. By implication, the Board declined the applicability of the p......
-
Table of Cases
...13 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 3, 12 C.E.L.R. (3d) 1, [2005] S.C.J. No. 2 ........................................................................... 151 British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., [2004......
-
Table of cases
...12 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 SCR 3, 12 CELR (3d) 1, [2005] SCJ No 2 ........................................................................................... 159 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd, 200......
-
Table of Cases
...12 British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board), [2005] 1 SCR 3, 12 CELR (3d) 1, [2005] SCJ No 2 ............................................................................... 153 British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd, [2004] 2 SCR 74......