Recent BC Court Decision Highlights The Meaning Of “Contaminated Site”

In Simpson & Yan v. Chapman & Drummond (23 January 2009), the British Columbia Provincial Court dismissed a statutory cost recovery action brought pursuant to the provincial Environmental Management Act (the "EMA") and Contaminated Sites Regulation (the "CSR"), on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove the property in question was a contaminated site within the meaning of the EMA and CSR.

The claimants purchased a residential property from the defendants and alleged that the latter failed to disclose the existence of an underground storage tank ("UST") on the property at the time of sale, which the claimants alleged had contaminated the property.

The court held that the claimants failed to establish the property was a contaminated site within the meaning of the EMA and CSR due to the methodology employed by their environmental consultant, ALARA Environmental Health and Safety Ltd. ("ALARA"). Specifically, the court held that while ALARA had analyzed