Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE Machinery Ltd., 2003 BCCA 56

• Judge: Rowles, Huddart and Levine, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 28, 2003
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2003 BCCA 56;(2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA)

Workshop Holdings v. CAE Machinery (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 70 (CA);

    291 W.A.C. 70

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. FE.030

Workshop Holdings Ltd. (appellant/plaintiff) v. CAE Machinery Ltd., formerly known as CAE Sumner Ltd., formerly known as Canadian Sumner Iron Works Limited (respondent/respondent) and Attorney General of British Columbia (intervenor)

(CA029172; 2003 BCCA 56)

Indexed As: Workshop Holdings Ltd. v. CAE Machinery Ltd.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Huddart and Levine, JJ.A.

January 28, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff was the owner of land on which an iron and brass foundry was formerly located. The plaintiff wished to develop the site into commercial strata titles. Following the required environmental investigation, copper and zinc pollution was found, likely caused by dumping of those components of brass during the foundry's operation. The plaintiff chose to remediate the site independently under s. 28 of the Waste Management Act, so that it could obtain approval in principle for its remediation plan and ultimately a certificate of compliance. The plaintiff did not seek from the Regional Waste Manager, nor did he suggest, a final determination that the site was contaminated under either s. 26.4(2) or 26.4(3). The plaintiff brought a cost recovery action under s. 27(4) of the Act against the defendant, the alleged former operator of the foundry, claiming the costs of remediation. The defendant applied under rule 18A to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to obtain a final determination under s. 26.4 as a condition precedent to the action.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 1470, dismissed the plaintiff's action based on the defendant's argument. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court.

Pollution Control - Topic 9317

Enforcement - General - Clean-up - Cost of - Liability for - Conditions precedent to statutory action - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a final determination under s. 26.4(2) or 26.4(3) of the Waste Management Act by a Regional Waste Manager that a site was contaminated was not a prerequisite to a statutory cost recovery action by a person who remediated independently under s. 28 of the Act - There was no provision anywhere in Part 4 of the Act that suggested a court was precluded from making a finding that a site was contaminated, as a fact incidental to a cost recovery action - See paragraphs 53 to 69.

Cases Noticed:

No. 158 Seabright Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 1330 (S.C.), affd. (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 98; 291 W.A.C. 98 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. v. Oldham, [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 45; 51 B.C.L.R.(3d) 93 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. British Columbia (Regional Waste Manager) - see Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. v. Oldham.

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. 12].

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.), consd. [para. 12].

Swamy v. Tham Demolition Ltd. et al., [2001] B.C.T.C. 551 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

O'Connor v. Fleck et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 545; 79 B.C.L.R.(3d) 280 (S.C.) consd. [para. 13].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Beazer East Inc. v. Assistant Regional Waste Manager (2000), No. 98WAS-01(b) (B.C. Env. App. Bd.), consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd. et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706; 225 N.R. 41; 108 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 23].

Ontario Hydro v. Kelly et al. (1998), 61 O.T.C. 123; 39 O.R.(3d) 107 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

Derivative Services Inc. v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada, [1999] O.J. No. 5307 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 23].

New York v. Exxon Corp. (1986), 633 F. Supp. 609 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 46].

Marriott Corp. v. Simkins Industries Inc. (1993), 825 F. Supp 1575 (S.D. Fla.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Busse Farms Ltd. v. Federal Business Development Bank (1996), 150 Sask.R. 305 (Q.B.), affd. (1998), 172 Sask.R. 133; 185 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1999), 249 N.R. 196; 203 Sask.R. 109; 240 W.A.C. 109 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 58].

Statutes Noticed:

Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 482, sect. 26.4(2), sect. 26.4(3) [para. 7]; sect. 27(4) [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Belevsky, D., and Tollefson, C., Bill 26 Arrives (1997), 55 The Advocate 185, generally [para. 23].

Braul, W., Liability Features of Bill 26, 4 Journal of Environmental Law & Practice 139, generally [para. 23].

British Columbia, Hansard, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (June 14, 1982), p. 8172 [para. 35].

British Columbia, Hansard, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (June 25, 1987), p. 2029 [para. 36].

British Columbia, Hansard, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (May 19, 1993), p. 6423 [para. 40].

British Columbia, Hansard, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (June 8, 1993), pp. 6946, 6947 [para. 40].

Crowley, Ruth, and Thompson, Fred, Retroactive Liability, Superfund and the Regulation of Contaminated Sites in British Columbia (1995), 29 U.B.C.L. Rev. 87-116, paras. 5-7 [para. 41].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 54].

Hansard - see British Columbia, Hansard, Debates of the Legislative Assembly.

Tollefson, Chris, and Belevsky, Diana, External Review of Remediation Liability Provisions: The Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993 (July 31, 1996), p. 58 [para. 43].

Counsel:

D.F. McCrimmon, for the appellant;

R.S. Anderson and T.M. Tomchak, for the respondent;

G. Morley and N. Brown, for the intervenor, Attorney General of B.C.

This appeal was heard on October 28-30, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Rowles, Huddart and Levine, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Huddart, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal on January 28, 2003.