Claim for contamination damages against MOECC allowed to proceed

In September, 1990, an oil spill occurred on a property owned by Shell.  The spill released approximately 9,000 litres of oil, and clean-up measures were undertaken.  Nearly 23 years later, in the spring of 2013, a neighbouring landowner whose property was 100 feet away from Shell's property became aware of the spill.  The landowner had the soil and groundwater on his  own property tested for contamination;  testing confirmed that his property was contaminated with petroleum and that the source of the contamination was the Shell property.

The landowner has since sued the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (now the "MOECC") for negligence on its part in the clean-up of the original Shell spill.  The landowner alleges that the MOECC is liable for damages because it "decided to get involved in the oil spill on the Shell property, made the decision as to where the excavation of contaminated should stop, erred in failing to ensure that the contaminants were contained; as a result the plaintiff’s property became contaminated; and the plaintiff sustained damages."

In response to the lawsuit, the MOECC brought a motion to strike the claim against it on the basis that it is "plain and obvious" that there is no reasonable cause of action that can be sustained against the MOECC.  The argument by the Ministry was that it owed no duty of care to the neighbouring landowner.  The Ministry argued that it was under no duty to perform any of the tasks described in the Environmental Protection Act, as they were discretionary only.  Therefore, any failure to perform those tasks could not form the basis of a negligence claim.

In deciding the motion, Justice Ray of the Superior Court of Justice accepted that the powers of the MOECC under the Act are discretionary, but ruled that the fact that the powers were discretionary did not preclude a finding that the MOECC owed the neighbouring landowner a duty of care.  As noted by Justice Ray:

Once the [MOECC] embarks on a course of action (whether obliged to do so under a legislative scheme, or has chosen to do so under discretionary powers) the [MOECC] is obliged to carry out that course of conduct without negligence.  There is then a sufficient proximity for the basis of a private law duty of care.

The MOECC's motion to strike was dismissed and the negligence claim against the MOECC is allowed to proceed.

Read the decision at: Swaita v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (Environment).

BC Court of Appeal rules surveyor hired by one neighbour didn't owe duty of care to other neighbour

If a surveyor hired by one property owner in a boundary dispute gets it wrong, does the neighbouring owner have a claim in negligence against that surveyor?

In 2002, Owner B purchased a property and was aware that a fence at the back of the property might not align with the actual boundary line.  In 2007, Owners K bought the property directly behind B's property.  The Ks disputed the location of the fence, arguing that it was 12 feet inside their property line.  The Ks had hired a surveyor.  He'd already surveyed the property in 1990 and surveyed it again in 2007.  In both surveys, he found that the fence was 12 feet inside the property line.

In 2008, under cover of darkness, Mr. K tore down the fence.  B immediately commenced an action in trespass against the Ks.  Following a summary trial, the B.C. Supreme Court found that the Ks' surveyor was correct (that the fence was within the Ks property) and dismissed the trespass claim.  However, that decision was overturned on appeal.  A second trial took place and the Supreme Court this time ruled in favour of B.  The Court concluded that the Ks' surveyor was not correct and that the boundary was actually in the location of the fence.  That decision was upheld on appeal.

As is usually the case, B was awarded part of her costs payable by the Ks, leaving her out of pocket the difference between the costs awarded and her actual legal costs.  So B commenced an action against the Ks' surveyor, arguing that his errors resulted in her financial loss.  In response to B's action, the surveyor made an application to strike the claim on the basis that B had no cause of action against the surveyor.  That application was dismissed by the Supreme Court and the case ended up again before the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision and allowed the surveyor's application to strike B's claim on the basis that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.  In summary, the Court wrote: "[B]'s pleading is fundamentally flawed. It fails to advance facts that reveal the necessary relational proximity to establish a duty of care. It does not allege that she had direct dealings with [the surveyor] or relied on his representations. Nor does it set out facts that would reasonably support a conclusion that [the surveyor] inferentially assumed responsibility for her beneficial interests. [B]’s claim must therefore be struck."

To recover damages in a negligence claim, it's not only necessary for the claimant to prove that the defendant (in this case, the surveyor) fell below the required standard of care and was negligent, but the claimant must also show that there was a relationship between the claimant and the defendant that created a "duty of care".  Making a mistake doesn't mean that someone will be liable to everyone in the world for any sort of loss that might somehow result from the mistake.  In this case, B had not hired the surveyor.  The Ks hired the surveyor in the context of an adversarial dispute with B, and the Court found that the surveyor did not assume responsibility for B's interests and did not owe her a duty of care.  

Read the decision at: Burke v. Watson & Barnard (A Firm).

Alta. Court rules lawyer negligent in drafting will meant to bequeath farmland

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has ruled that a solicitor was negligent in drafting a will for a client after the intended gift to a beneficiary failed.  The deceased owned land, including four quarter sections he wished to pass onto his brother through his will.  In drafting the deceased's will, the lawyer did include the bequest.  However, it was not actually the deceased who owned the four quarter sections.  Instead, the property was held by the deceased's company.  The intended gift failed and the brother sued the lawyer for negligence.

The Court found first that the lawyer owed the brother, as an intended beneficiary, a duty of care.  Next, the Court found that the lawyer had fallen below the standard of care required in failing to address the fact that the land was owned by the company: "A reasonably competent solicitor in those circumstances would, at a minimum, have asked who owned land to be gifted in the will or done a search to ascertain in ownership."

The Court awarded damages to the brother in an amount equal to the value of the land as of the date of the death of the deceased testator.  Added to that amount was some $11,200 which would have been earned by the brother as surface lease income had he received the properties.

Read the decision at: Meier v Rose.

Berendsen case settles just days before Supreme Court of Canada hearing

The case by Ben Berendsen, a Bruce County dairy farmer, against Ontario's Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has settled after 17 years of litigation.  In 2008, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded Berendsen $1.7 million in damages related to the effects of contamination left on his farm property by the MTO during a road construction in the 1960's.  In 2009, the damages award was set aside by the Court of Appeal.  Now comes word that the case has been settled as between Berendsen and the MTO.  The hearing before the Supreme Court was to take place yesterday, January 28.  The appeal has now been discontinued. 

Better Farming has reported on the settlement, though it appears that there must be a confidentiality agreement in place: Books shut on Berendsen case.  Neither Berendsen nor the MTO were willing to say much about it.