Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 JUNE 2013

Putting The "New" In Nuisance: Nuisance Present Before Purchase May Prevent Post-Purchase Recovery

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

When your land is contaminated by a neighbour, proving that it happened may not always be enough. In Midwest v. Thordarson, 2013 ONSC 775 the plaintiff Midwest Properties Ltd. purchased a property after obtaining a Phase I Environmental Assessment.

CanadaEnvironment

When your land is contaminated by a neighbour, proving that it happened may not always be enough. In Midwest v. Thordarson, 2013 ONSC 775 the plaintiff Midwest Properties Ltd. ("Midwest") purchased a property after obtaining a Phase I Environmental Assessment. Midwest never tested the property's soil before purchasing it. However, when it later found out that it was contaminated, Midwest brought an action against Thorco Contracting Limited and John Thordarson (the owner of the adjacent property and its principal) (the "Defendants") for breaching the Environmental Protection Act (the "EPA") and for nuisance and negligence.

The Defendants used their property as a storage site for petroleum hydrocarbon waste since 1973 but argued at trial that the contamination on Midwest's property was not theirs. Pollak J. did not accept the Defendants' argument that someone else caused the contamination on Midwest's property. With respect to the EPA claim against the Defendants, the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from