Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al., 2001 BCSC 551
| Judge | Stromberg-Stein, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Case Date | April 11, 2001 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2001 BCSC 551;[2001] B.C.T.C. 551 (SC) |
Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd., [2001] B.C.T.C. 551 (SC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.018
Sarojini Swamy (plaintiff) v. Tham Demolition Ltd., Sita Tham, Ronald Bates, Great West Marine Development Corp. and Joseph Lepur's Construction Inc. (defendants) and Beesla Trucking Ltd. (third party)
(A982834; 2001 BCSC 551)
Indexed As: Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al.
British Columbia Supreme Court
Vancouver
Stromberg-Stein, J.
April 11, 2001.
Summary:
This headnote contains no summary.
Pollution Control - Topic 8062.1
Land - Waste disposal - General - Contaminated site - Persons responsible (incl. apportionment of fault) - See paragraphs 1 to 31.
Pollution Control - Topic 9317
Enforcement - General - Clean-up - Cost of - Liability for - See paragraphs 1 to 31.
Cases Noticed:
Beazer East Inc. v. Environmental Appeal Board (B.C.) et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 893; 84 B.C.L.R.(3d) 88 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].
O'Connor v. Fleck et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 545 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].
Swamy v. Tham Demolition et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 625 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 4].
R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 11].
Counsel:
P. Jaffe, for the plaintiff;
R.R. Hira, Q.C., for the defendants, Tham Demolition, Sita Tham and Ronald Bates;
K.A.G. Bridge, for the defendant/third party, Beesla Trucking Ltd.
This action was heard in Chambers, at Vancouver, B.C., on April 9 and 10, 2001, before Stromberg-Stein, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 11, 2001, and corrigendum on April 12, 2001.
Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE Machinery Ltd., 2003 BCCA 56
..., [2000] B.C.T.C. 893; 84 B.C.L.R.(3d) 88 (S.C.), 2000 BCSC 1698; and Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al. , [2001] B.C.T.C. 551 (S.C.); 2001 BCSC 551 ( Swamy No. 2) , as well as the trial judge's reasons in this matter. [13] In contrast, Workshop considers the Legislature intended s. 27(4)......
-
Gehring et al. v. Chevron Canada Ltd. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. C30
...contaminated site, and costs for remediation have already been incurred: see Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. (2001), 38 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1, 2001 BCSC 551, at para. 29, No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (2001), 97 B.C.L.R. (3d) 340, 2001 BCSC 1330, at para. 36, and Workshop H......
-
No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., 2001 BCSC 1330
...be dismissed. They rely on the decision of this court in Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. ("Swamy No. 2") , [2001] B.C.J. No. 721 (Q.L.); 2001 BCSC 551. The Position of the Plaintiffs [5] The plaintiffs distinguish Swamy No. 2 on its facts or, alternatively, say it is wrongly decided and incon......
-
Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE Machinery Ltd., 2003 BCCA 56
..., [2000] B.C.T.C. 893; 84 B.C.L.R.(3d) 88 (S.C.), 2000 BCSC 1698; and Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al. , [2001] B.C.T.C. 551 (S.C.); 2001 BCSC 551 ( Swamy No. 2) , as well as the trial judge's reasons in this matter. [13] In contrast, Workshop considers the Legislature intended s. 27(4)......
-
Gehring et al. v. Chevron Canada Ltd. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. C30
...contaminated site, and costs for remediation have already been incurred: see Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. (2001), 38 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1, 2001 BCSC 551, at para. 29, No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. (2001), 97 B.C.L.R. (3d) 340, 2001 BCSC 1330, at para. 36, and Workshop H......
-
No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., 2001 BCSC 1330
...be dismissed. They rely on the decision of this court in Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. ("Swamy No. 2") , [2001] B.C.J. No. 721 (Q.L.); 2001 BCSC 551. The Position of the Plaintiffs [5] The plaintiffs distinguish Swamy No. 2 on its facts or, alternatively, say it is wrongly decided and incon......