Knowledge Centre

“First Capital Realty Inc. v. Imperial Oil Limited” Case Comment

January 11, 2013

Eyes Wide Open: Cost Recovery Action when Plaintiff Purchases a Contaminated Site with Knowledge of Contamination

The issue of fair allocation between a plaintiff and a defendant of the costs incurred by the plaintiff in remediating a contaminated site was recently considered by our Supreme Court in First Capital Realty Inc. v. Imperial Oil Limited. The June 2012 decision (as yet unreported) is of importance to those contemplating or already involved in a cost recovery action and to those in the business of purchasing and selling contaminated sites in British Columbia.

The facts of the case were as follows: The defendant, Imperial Oil Limited, and its predecessor companies owned a commercial property in Nanaimo, BC from about 1958 until about 1993. The defendant sold the property in 1993 to a third party, a numbered company. In August 2007, the plaintiff, First Capital Realty Inc., purchased the property from the numbered company.

During its ownership of the property, the defendant had operated a gasoline service station on the property. The numbered company, which bought the property from the defendant, held the property but did not operate any business on it. The plaintiff bought the property from the numbered company for the purposes of redevelopment and paid more than fair market value for it. Prior to completing the purchase of the property, the plaintiff undertook an environmental investigation of the property which confirmed that the property was contaminated with hydrocarbons. The plaintiff proceeded with the purchase without any adjustment of the purchase price in recognition of the contamination. On becoming owner, the plaintiff remediated the property and obtained a certificate of compliance from the Ministry of Environment. The costs of remediation and certificate of compliance application totaled approximately $234,000. The plaintiff sued the defendant pursuant to section 47 of the Environmental Management Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 53 (“EMA”) to recover these costs.

At trial, the parties both agreed that the property was a “contaminated site” pursuant to the EMA prior to its remediation by the plaintiff.

The parties also agreed that both the plaintiff and the defendant were “responsible persons” pursuant to section 45 of the EMA as the current and former owner of the property, respectively.

Thus, the primary issue for the court was whether any of the remediation costs incurred by the plaintiff ought to be allocated to the defendant and, if so, in what amount.

The defendant took the position that no costs of remediation should be attributed to it because at the time of the purchase of the property the plaintiff was fully aware of the contamination and accepted the risk without seeking a discount in the purchase price.

The court held that where a purchaser acquires a contaminated site with a reduction in price to reflect the contamination, the court would be inclined to discount the amount of the costs of remediation which the purchaser could recover from other responsible persons to prevent the purchaser from being compensated twice for the costs incurred (i.e., by obtaining a discount in the purchase price and by obtaining judgment in a cost recovery action). However, that was not the case here. The plaintiff had not obtained any discount in the purchase price and the court disagreed with the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff ought not to recover any costs of remediation from the defendant on the basis that it knew of the contamination prior to purchasing the property.

Turning then to the appropriate amount to be allocated to the defendant, the court reviewed the considerable expert evidence led by the parties respecting the source of the contamination at the property.

There were two zones of hydrocarbon contamination at the property which the plaintiff had remediated by way of an excavation. The first was the shallow contamination which both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert agreed had been caused by the defendant’s gas station operation. The second area was the deeper contamination that contained traces of benzene. The plaintiff’s expert also attributed this deeper contamination to the defendant’s activities. The defendant’s expert, on the other hand, was of the view that this deeper contamination was unrelated to the defendant’s activities but was rather caused by coal waste fill which had historically been deposited on the property by non-parties to the action. The court preferred the defendant’s expert’s opinion concluding that only the shallow contamination was caused by the defendant.

Although the plaintiff did not cause any of the contamination (shallow or deep), the court allocated to the defendant only those costs attributable to excavating and disposing of the shallow contamination (approximately $30,000), which were attributable to the defendant’s activities. Further, since the property was excavated as part of the plaintiff’s redevelopment plans, the court applied a discount to account for the excavation costs that would have been incurred in any event (i.e., even in the absence of the shallow contamination). Applying that discount, the ultimate amount awarded was $28,200.

This decision serves as a reminder to those in the business of purchasing contaminated sites for the purposes of redevelopment that they may be prevented from or limited in their ability to recover the costs incurred in remediating the property they purchase if the primary target did not cause all of the contamination and/or if a discount in the purchase price was obtained from the seller to account for the contamination. However, the case also clarifies that knowledge of contamination prior to purchasing the property is not necessarily a bar to recovery of the costs of remediation against the polluter where no discount in the purchase price on account of contamination is obtained.

Important Notice: The information contained in this Article is intended for general information purposes only and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It is not intended as legal advice from Harper Grey LLP or the individual author(s), nor intended as a substitute for legal advice on any specific subject matter. Detailed legal counsel should be sought prior to undertaking any legal matter. The information contained in this Article is current to the last update and may change. Last Update: January 16, 2024.

Related

Harper Grey welcomes four new associates
Harper Grey welcomes four new associates
Abigail Turner recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Abigail Turner recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise Abigail Turner recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Bruno Desparts to present at Ma Pratique hosted by Association des juristes d’expression française de la Colombie-Britannique
Bruno Desparts to present at Ma Pratique hosted by Association des juristes d’expression française de la Colombie-Britannique Bruno Desparts to present at Ma Pratique hosted by Association des juristes d’expression française de la Colombie-Britannique
Lesley Russell lends her Expertise in Recent Presentation focused on Estate Planning
Lesley Russell lends her Expertise in Recent Presentation focused on Estate Planning Lesley Russell lends her Expertise in Recent Presentation focused on Estate Planning
Christopher Rusnak, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in three areas of expertise
Christopher Rusnak, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in three areas of expertise Christopher Rusnak, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in three areas of expertise
Retail Case Update: A Follow Up on the Impact of Failure to Immediately Disclose Settlement Agreements
Retail Case Update: A Follow Up on the Impact of Failure to Immediately Disclose Settlement Agreements Retail Case Update: A Follow Up on the Impact of Failure to Immediately Disclose Settlement Agreements Retail Case Update: A Follow Up on the Impact of Failure to Immediately Disclose Settlement Agreements
David Pilley recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada ® 2024 in two areas of expertise
David Pilley recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada ® 2024 in two areas of expertise David Pilley recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada ® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Harper Grey sponsors 2024 Allard Law Alumni Achievement Awards
Harper Grey sponsors 2024 Allard Law Alumni Achievement Awards
Abigail Turner participates as judge in external Advisory Panel for 2024 Canadian Law Awards
Abigail Turner participates as judge in external Advisory Panel for 2024 Canadian Law Awards Abigail Turner participates as judge in external Advisory Panel for 2024 Canadian Law Awards
Three Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of General Commercial Litigation
Three Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of General Commercial Litigation
Kimberly Jakeman, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Kimberly Jakeman, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise Kimberly Jakeman, KC recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Five Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Health Law
Five Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Health Law
Nigel Trevethan recognized as Insurance Litigator of the Year by Benchmark Litigation® Canada for third consecutive year
Nigel Trevethan recognized as Insurance Litigator of the Year by Benchmark Litigation® Canada for third consecutive year Nigel Trevethan recognized as Insurance Litigator of the Year by Benchmark Litigation® Canada for third consecutive year
Michael Hewitt recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Michael Hewitt recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise Michael Hewitt recognized as a Litigation Star by Benchmark Canada® 2024 in two areas of expertise
Two Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Environmental Law
Two Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Environmental Law Two Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Environmental Law Two Harper Grey lawyers selected by Benchmark Canada® 2024 as Litigation Stars in the area of Environmental Law
arrow icon

Subscribe