"Contaminated Sites and Migration", Environmental Law Bulletin Harper Grey LLP
January 2004Consultant Liability: Are Environmental Consultants Really “Exempt” from Liability when Working on Contaminated Sites?
By: Richard E. Bereti* and Jonathan Corbett
This paper discusses the responsibility and liability provisions of British Columbia’s Waste Management Act(“WMA”) - carried over for the most part into the new Environmental Management Act (“EMA”) - from the perspective of victims of contamination due to migration from one property to another. Such victims are often neighbouring landowners or business operators, or perhaps neighbours to such neighbours, and so forth. Migration knows no property lines and can extend surprising distances, particularly where groundwater and surface water areimpacted. This paper discusses the and provisions of British Columbia’s (“WMA”) - carried over for the most part into the new (“EMA”) - from the perspective of victims of contamination due to migration from one property to another. Such victims are often neighbouring landowners or business operators, or perhaps neighbours to such neighbours, and so forth. Migration knows no property lines and can extend surprising distances, particularly where groundwater and surface water areimpacted. A truly innocent victim of migration wants to avoid spending money on a clean-up where the contamination on their land is present only because it migrated from a neighbouring property. However, where they are forced to clean up a site or they elect to do so, victims want to recover their costs. to read this article click on the link below)
