[Indexed as: Rolin Resources Inc. v. CB Supplies Ltd.]

摘要

Environmental law —— Liability for environmental harm — Miscellaneous —— Defendant's predecessors operated foundry on property that plaintiffs owned, until foundry was decommissioned by backfilling of foundry pits — Third party FA owned plaintiffs and was officer and director of predecessors until, as part of shareholders' purchase, he was bought out of predecessors with provision of general release — Predecessors became defendant and vacated property, while FA raised possibility of environmental contamination on site which ultimately led to environmental remediation — Plaintiffs brought action against defendant for costs of remediation; defendant counterclaimed and brought third party action against FA — Action allowed in part, in amount of $196,659.14; counterclaim dismissed; third party action dismissed — Property was contaminated site, likely due to foundry operations and handling of contaminated fill from those operations — Filling of pits with contaminated sands, when proper removal of such sand was possible, was major contributing factor to contamination — Responsible persons under Environmental Management Act clearly included defendant through predecessors as former operators, plaintiffs as owners, and FA as officer and director of both owners and operators — None of plaintiffs' claimed costs were statute barred, as cause of action did not fully accrue until all remediation costs crystalized — Plaintiffs' expert evidence established that majority of remediation costs were reasonably incurred, but claimed lost rental income was not proven — FA did not explain why he decided to place contaminated foundry sand into pits or whether he made inquiries into pits' ability to contain contamination — All parties were involved in storage and disposal of contaminated sands in pits, while predecessors also generated, transported or treated such sands — Defendant could not avoid liability by asserting innocence of its shareholders, as they inherited whatever liability flowed from buying shares in predecessors that had already become liable under Act — There was no basis upon which to find that plaintiffs committed any torts in relation to predecessor so as to impose liability for costs of remediation — Fair and just result would be to make each of defendant and FA responsible for one-third of remediation costs already paid by plaintiffs, except that FA had been released from liability so defendant would be allocated half of reasonable costs.