Case information

Environmental law — Permits and licences — Validity — Summary judgment — Motion judge dismissing plaintiff’s claim because environmental licence issued in respect of previous development no longer valid — Court of Appeal dismissing appeal — Whether a licence issued pursuant to a statute, in this case The Environment Act, C.C.S.M., c. E125, that is unconditional and that does not have an expiry date can be cancelled or revoked by a governmental authority, in this case the Government of Manitoba, in a manner not provided for by the Act in question.

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.

In 1990, an environmental licence under The Environment Act, C.C.S.M., c. E125 (“licence”) was issued by Manitoba’s then Department of Environment (“Department”) to a garden supply business with a composting component on a property located in a rural municipality. The licenced development was never established by that business. In 2009, the property was purchased by a new owner. The applicant, Samborski Environmental Ltd. (“Samborski”) attained an interest in the property by way of an option to purchase. Samborski has attempted to obtain approval for a composting operation on the property. In 2016, Samborski discovered that the Department had issued the licence to the previous business and commenced an action against the Government of Manitoba (“respondent”) for damages for negligence and breach of statutory duty for failing to advise Samborski of the existence of the licence. The respondent moved for summary judgment. The motion judge granted the motion, holding that the licence was not valid as it was issued in respect of a previous development that was not acquired by the new owner. After the previous owner abandoned the development, the licence was cancelled or revoked. The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s determination.holding that the licence was not valid as it was issued in respect of a previous development that was not acquired by the new owner. After the previous owner abandoned the development, the licence was cancelled or revoked. The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s determination.