Case information
Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.
36820
John Thordarson, et al. v. Midwest Properties Ltd.
(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)
Docket
Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.
Date | Proceeding | Filed By (if applicable) |
---|---|---|
2016-05-27 | Close file on Leave | |
2016-05-27 | Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties | |
2016-05-27 | Judgment on leave sent to the parties | |
2016-05-26 |
Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C56758, 2015 ONCA 819, dated November 27, 2015, is dismissed with costs. Dismissed, with costs |
|
2016-04-25 | All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, Abe Ka Br | |
2016-02-29 | Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, Completed on: 2016-02-29 | John Thordarson |
2016-02-19 | Certificate (on limitations to public access) | Midwest Properties Ltd. |
2016-02-19 | Notice of name | Midwest Properties Ltd. |
2016-02-19 | Book of authorities | Midwest Properties Ltd. |
2016-02-19 | Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, Completed on: 2016-02-19 | Midwest Properties Ltd. |
2016-02-08 | Correspondence received, From the Minister dated 2016-02-08. Re: Not an intervener with full party status | |
2016-02-05 | Correspondence received from, Paula Lombardi dated 2016-02-04. Re: Return of the C/A order form | John Thordarson |
2016-01-26 | Letter acknowledging receipt of an incomplete application for leave to appeal and without formal Court of Appeal order, File opened on 2016-01-26 | |
2016-01-26 | Certificate (on limitations to public access) | John Thordarson |
2016-01-26 | Notice of name | John Thordarson |
2016-01-26 | Book of authorities | John Thordarson |
2016-01-26 | Application for leave to appeal, C/A order missing - Rec'd on 2016-05-12, Completed on: 2016-05-13 | John Thordarson |
Parties
Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.
Main parties
Name | Role | Status |
---|---|---|
Thordarson, John | Applicant | Active |
Thorco Contracting Limited | Applicant | Active |
v.
Name | Role | Status |
---|---|---|
Midwest Properties Ltd. | Respondent | Active |
Counsel
Party: Thordarson, John
Counsel
Frank Zechner
680 Waterloo Street
London, Ontario
N6A 3V8
Telephone: (519) 660-7878
FAX: (519) 660-7879
Email: paula.lombardi@siskinds.com
Agent
1111 Prince of Wales
Suite 401
Ottawa, Ontario
K2C 3T2
Telephone: (613) 780-2012
FAX: (613) 688-0271
Email: CBaxter@conway.pro
Party: Thorco Contracting Limited
Counsel
Frank Zechner
680 Waterloo Street
London, Ontario
N6A 3V8
Telephone: (519) 660-7878
FAX: (519) 660-7879
Email: paula.lombardi@siskinds.com
Agent
1111 Prince of Wales
Suite 401
Ottawa, Ontario
K2C 3T2
Telephone: (613) 780-2012
FAX: (613) 688-0271
Email: CBaxter@conway.pro
Party: Midwest Properties Ltd.
Counsel
22 Adelaide Street West
Suite 3600, Bay Adelaide Centre
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 4E3
Telephone: (416) 865-6608
FAX: (416) 865-6636
Email: evanwoudenberg@grllp.com
Summary
Keywords
None.
Summary
Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.
Environmental law — Interpretation of s. 99 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 — Caveat emptor — Damages — Unjust enrichment — Whether s. 99 applies to historical contamination — Whether s. 99 of the Act should be interpreted to apply to historical contamination even where there is no identifiable spill event — Whether historical contamination is properly classified as a “spill” — Whether a purchaser can circumvent caveat emptor by suing its neighbour — Whether purchasers are relieved from conducting due diligence and investigating — Whether a plaintiff can recover both civilly and statutorily for the same restoration costs — How are damages measured in environmental contamination cases — Whether a plaintiff is entitled to have its property remediated by administrative order and to receive damages for the cost of remediation — Whether courts can take “stigma,” restoration costs, and diminution in property value into consideration — What weight each factor should be given.
In 2007, the respondent Midwest Properties acquired property zoned “industrial”. The neighbouring property had been owned by the applicant Thorco Contracting Limited, which is owned and operated by the applicant John Thordarson, since 1973. Thorco used the property for servicing petroleum handling equipment and lining tanks. Various materials and wastes, including petroleum hydrocarbons (“PHCs”) were stored on Thorco’s property. Prior to the purchase, Thorco provided Midwest with environmental reports on the Thorco property. It also allowed Midwest to conduct environmental studies. PHC contamination was disclosed and Thorco was found to have been convicted of offences under the Environmental Protection Act in 2000. Thorco had not complied with the resulting orders and had continued to store waste improperly. Midwest then completed an environmental assessment of its own property and discovered PHC contamination of the soil and groundwater, along with a risk that PHCs could pose a health risk in its building. Experts indicated that remediation would cost $1,328,000. In 2012, the Ministry of the Environment ordered Thorco to take the steps necessary to restore the contaminated property, including Midwest’s property. When Thorco did not comply, Midwest sued Thorco and Mr. Thordarson for damages in negligence and nuisance, damages under s. 99(2) of the Act, and punitive damages. The action was dismissed at trial, but the respondents succeeded on appeal.
Lower court rulings
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
CV-09-382649, 2013 ONSC 775
Action dismissed
Court of Appeal for Ontario
C56758, 2015 ONCA 819
Appeal allowed
Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal
The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available
Related links
Factums on appeal
The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.
If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.
Downloadable PDFs
Not available