519 672 2121

We are shocked and devastated by the senseless crime motivated by hatred and racism that was committed in our community on June 6. We extend our deepest condolences to the friends and family of those who were killed, and wish a full recovery to the surviving young boy who remains in hospital. We stand in solidarity with our Muslim partners, colleagues, clients, friends, and neighbours in rejecting Islamophobia in all forms, and demanding better for our community. Hatred has no place here. It diminishes every one of us. Each of us shares the responsibility for putting an end to it. We recognize that as members of the legal profession, our share of that responsibility is heightened. This unspeakable crime strikes at the very core of the Muslim community’s sense of security and will have a lasting impact. Although this tragedy can never be undone, we believe the goodness in our city will prevail. We commit to be better for each other, to demand better from each other and to share love, kindness and tolerance with one another. We must stand together to build a safer, more inclusive community for all.

Close mobile menu

Should fairness affect the imposition of environmental liability on innocent property owners?

Kawartha Lakes v. Director began with a furnace oil spill in the basement of Wayne and Liana Gendron. Their home insurance company retained a cleanup contractor, but the spilled fuel had already flowed through the municipal sewer system and ditches into Sturgeon Lake. The Ministry of Environment ordered the homeowners to clean up the spill,  but they used up their insurance funds before cleaning up municipal property, such as roads, storm drains and lakefront. The Ministry then ordered the City to take over the cleanup.

The City appealed the Order to the Environmental Review Tribunal,  intending to argue that the cleanup cost should not be imposed on the City because it properly belonged to those responsible for creating the spill and for allowing it to contaminate municipal property.

On November 20 2009, the Environmental Review Tribunal barred the City from calling evidence on the liability of other parties. In essence, it ruled that allowing innocent parties to appeal orders because they don’t fairly allocate liability could make its hearings more costly and complex. The ERT will no longer follow an earlier decision on the important role of fairness, (Appletex),  because this might interfere with the MOE’s ability to impose environmental cleanup requirements. Innocent parties forced to pay unfair environmental costs should seek compensation in the civil courts (often a fruitless effort), and should not expect any help from the ERT.

On December 19, the ERT agreed to book the appeal hearing for April, but meanwhile the City must complete the cleanup.

News & Views


The more you understand, the easier it is to manage well.

View Blog

The future of remote work: Important employer considerations

For many employers, the last 15 months has been a forced experiment on whether large segment…

Class actions as clone wars?

Ontario Court rejects notion that class members must be “clones.” Judges on a certification …