British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.), (2003) 185 B.C.A.C. 94 (CA)

• Judge: Rowles, Prowse and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: July 29, 2003
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 94 (CA);2003 BCCA 436

B.C. Hydro v. Env. Appeal Bd. (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 94 (CA);

    303 W.A.C. 94

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.008

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (appellant/petitioner) v. Environmental Appeal Board, the Attorney General of British Columbia, North Fraser Harbour Commission, Canadian Pacific Railway, General Chemical Canada Ltd. and Deputy Director of Waste Management (respondents/respondents)

(CA027158; 2003 BCCA 436)

Indexed As: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Prowse and Newbury, JJ.A.

July 29, 2003.

Summary:

The Deputy Director of Waste Manage­ment made an order under s. 27.1 of the Waste Management Act identifying six entities as "persons respon­sible" 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 Harbour Com­mission, Gen­eral Chemical Canada and Canadian Gypsum Co. appealed.

The Environmental Appeal Board allowed the appeal. 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 decision 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, allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the Deputy Director.

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 "responsible persons" - 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 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 - See paragraphs 48 to 83.

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 ].

Cases Noticed:

British Columbia Power Corp. v. Attorney General of British Columbia (1963), 47 D.L.R.(2d) 633 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, 1980, Re: Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. et al. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General) et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 297; 53 N.R. 268; 47 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 139 A.P.R. 125; 8 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Rempel-Trail Transportation Ltd. and Neilsen, Re (1978), 93 D.L.R.(3d) 595 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 20].

West Fraser Timber Co. v. British Colum­bia (Regional Waste Manager), [1988] B.C.J. No. 2127 (S.C.), consd. [para. 24].

British Columbia Railway Co. v. Driedger, [1988] B.C.J. No. 3053, affd. [1990] B.C.J. No. 1207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 625; 81 B.C.L.R.(3d) 293 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

O'Connor v. Fleck et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 545; 79 B.C.L.R.(3d) 280 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. v. Imperial Oil Ltd., [2001] B.C.J. No. 1922 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE Machin­ery Ltd. (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 70; 291 W.A.C. 70 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411; 1 N.R. 299, refd to. [paras. 40, 80, 91].

Rossi v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., [1991] B.C.J. 429; 1 B.L.R.(2d) 175 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 41, 106].

Witco Chemical Co. v. Oakville (Town), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 273; 1 N.R. 453, consd. [para. 54].

South African Supply and Cold Storage Co., Re, [1904] 2 Ch. 268, refd to. [para. 57].

Seaboard Life Insurance Co. and Attorney General of British Columbia, Re (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 264 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 57].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401; 66 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 62].

West v. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

Bera v. Marr (1986), 27 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

MacKenzie v. Commissioner of Teachers' Pensions (B.C.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 69; 27 W.A.C. 69; 69 B.C.L.R.(2d) 227 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Hornby Island Trust Committee v. Storm­well (1988), 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 383 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Johnstone v. Wright (2002), 172 B.C.A.C. 6; 282 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 458, refd to. [para. 69].

Agrifoods International Corp. v. Beatrice Foods Inc., [1997] B.C.J. No. 393; 34 B.L.R.(2d) 294 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

Hoole v. Advani, [1996] B.C.J. No. 614; 29 B.L.R.(2d) 150 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 106].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 125].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 125].

Statutes Noticed:

Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 482, sect. 26.5(1) [para. 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Corporation Precedents (1962), vol. 2, p. 1321 [para. 109].

Canadian Corporation Precedents (2nd Ed., 1976), vol. 3, pp. 12 to 22 [para. 109].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legis­lation in Canada (2nd Ed. 1991), p. 279 [para. 65].

Côté, Pierre-André, Interpretation of Legis­lation in Canada (3rd Eng. Ed. 2000), pp. 125 to 139 [para. 65]; p. 127 [para. 67]; p. 148 [para. 68].

Crowley, R. and Thompson, F., Retroac­tive Liability, Superfund and the Regula­tion of Contaminated Sites in British Columbia (1995), 29 U.B.C.L. Rev. 87, p. 110 [para. 68].

Davies, Ward & Beck, Canadian Corpora­tion Precedents (1962), vol. 2, p. 1321 [para. 109].

Davies, Ward & Beck, Canadian Corpora­tion Precedents (2nd Ed. 1976), vol. 3, pp. 12 to 22 [para. 109].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 87 [para. 72]; 185 [para. 68]; 186 [para. 62]; 197, 198 [para. 71].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 512 [para. 64]; 513 [para. 68].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 548 to 553 [para. 65]; 561 [para. 70].

Driedger, Elmer A., Statutes: Retroactive Retrospective Reflections (1978), 56 Can. Bar Rev. 264, generally [para. 38]; pp. 268, 269 [para. 62].

Edinger, Retrospectivity in Law (1995), 29 U.B.C.L. Rev. 5, Part 4, paras. 10 to 12, [para. 76].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 454 [para. 49].

O'Brien's Encyclopaedia of Forms (10th Ed. 1967), vol. 6, p. 310 [para. 108].

McDonald, M., An Enquiry into the Ethics of Retrospective Liability: The Case of British Columbia's Bill 26 (1995), 29 U.B.C.L. Rev. 63, generally [para. 68]; pp. 63 to 71 [para. 76].

Counsel:

J.R. Singleton, Q.C., and D.G. Perry, for the appellant;

E.J. Rowbotham and N.E. Brown, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia;

K.E.W. Mitchell, for the respondent, North Fraser Harbour Commission;

P.A. Spencer, for the respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway;

D.K. Jones, for the respondent, General Chemical Canada Ltd.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 5 and 6, 2002, before Rowles, Prowse and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on July 29, 2003, and the follow­ing opinions were filed:

Newbury, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 79;

Prowse, J.A. - see paragraphs 80 to 85;

Rowles, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 85 to 129.