In 2016, the B.C. Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case of Domovitch v. Willows, 2016 BCSC 1068, which considered a number of important issues in the context of a residential cost recovery claim. Given that very few cases involving residential contamination go to trial, the decision provides valuable insight into the interpretation and ...
In the 2018 decision of Foster v. Tundra Turbos Inc., 2018 BCSC 563, Warren J., the Court once again cited Richard and Una’s book on B.C.’s environmental management legislation as an authoritative source and held at paragraph 21: “[21] Liability under the E.M.A. is based on the “polluter-pays principle” that those who cause contamination should ...
Since both landlords and tenants can attract statutory environmental liability arising from mere ownership or having carried out any (even non-polluting) operation on contaminated land, measures to minimize and, where appropriate, allocate, the liability risk should be considered by both prior to the commencement of the lease. That being said, the nature of the protections ...
Richard and Una wrote the book on B.C.’s environmental management legislation (literally) which was cited in a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision involving environmental liability. In the 2017 case of Burnaby (City) v. Environmental Appeal Board, 2017 BCSC 2267 Brundrett J., the Court referred to Richard and Una’s book at paragraph 11 of the decision: ...
The Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 (“EMA”) and the Contaminated Sites Regulation, B.C. Reg. 375/96 (“CSR”) provide the regulatory framework for identifying and allocating liability among persons responsible for the remediation of contaminated sites in British Columbia. There are two avenues by which a person may become liable for the costs of remediation ...
