Canada: Parent Corporation Liability For Foreign Subsidiaries

Last Updated: October 22 2001

Article by Waldemar Braul and Paul Wilson

A. Introduction

Environmental liability is increasingly an international concern. This is especially evident in judicial decisions holding parent corporations liable for environmental damages caused by their foreign subsidiaries. This article discusses several precedent-setting cases in Canada, the United States and Europe. These cases show that Courts will hold parent corporations liable for the environmental sins of their subsidiaries by piercing the parent’s corporate veil or assigning tort liability directly to the parent company.

B. The Amoco Cadiz Decision

In 1978, the Amoco Cadiz tanker grounded on the coast of France and spilled its cargo of crude oil, damaging the marine environment. The French government, French individuals, businesses and associations sued the owner of the Amoco Cadiz, Amoco Transport Company ("Amoco Transport"), and its American parent Standard Oil Company ("Standard Oil") in the Northern District Court of Illinois (the jurisdiction of Standard Oil)1.

The Court found that Amoco Transport, a Liberian corporation, was merely a nominal owner of the Amoco Cadiz and that Standard Oil controlled the design, construction, operation and management of the tanker and treated it as if it belonged to Standard Oil. The Court found Standard Oil liable in tort for its negligent supervision of its subsidiaries. Additionally, the Court saw little rationale for treating Standard Oil differently from its subsidiaries, which were treated as mere "instrumentalities". The negligence of the subsidiaries was therefore assigned directly to the parent.

C. The Canadian Beazer Decision

A noteworthy Canadian parent-subsidiary environmental case is Beazer and Atlantic v. Environmental Appeal Board 2, decided by the British Columbia Supreme Court in late 2000. The litigation concerned a 1997 order by the British Columbia environmental regulator. The order directed a Pittsburgh company to remediate a contaminated site formerly owned by its subsidiary. The subsidiary no longer existed at the time of the order; it was amalgamated after the contaminating activities took place. The regulator therefore issued the order jointly against the successor company and the parent company, expressly stating that the parent corporation was a past "operator" of the site. The Waste Management Act 3 states that an "operator" means "a person who is or was in control of or responsible for any operation located at a contaminated site . . .".

On appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board, the parent corporation relied on well-entrenched case law treating parent and subsidiary corporations as separate legal entities, each responsible for their own liabilities. The regulator, in response, argued that this case law was immaterial, given the Waste Management Act’s definition of "operator". The Environmental Appeal Board agreed with the regulator and found that the parent corporation had used numerous types of control over the subsidiary corporation, including some which had a direct effect on the operations at the subsidiary’s site. As a result, the Board concluded that these controls collectively placed the parent corporation into the shoes of an "operator".

The British Columbia Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Board. The Court held that the Board correctly found that there were many indicia of actual control of the site by the foreign parent corporation and, collectively, the effect of the control was to render the parent an "operator" of the site and thus was properly named in the remediation order. The Court also clarified that the parent corporation was not an "owner" (another class of person who could be named in an order) merely on account of owning the shares in the subsidiary.

D. The Canadian United Canadian Malt Decision

Also in 2000, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in United Canadian Malt Ltd. v. Outboard Marine Corp. of Canada4, allowed a tort claim to proceed against an American parent corporation. The plaintiff claimed that its property had been contaminated by leachate originating from property formerly owned by a (still-operating) Canadian subsidiary of an American corporation. The plaintiff claimed damages against the Canadian subsidiary, its individual directors and officers and the American parent corporation. The individual directors and officers and the American parent corporation brought a motion to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action against them.

The Court acknowledged that the claim against the American parent corporation was in essence "an attempt by the plaintiff to ‘pierce the corporate veil’ and thereby fasten liability on the parent corporation for the actions of its subsidiary." The legislation in Ontario does not provide a British Columbia-type definition of "operator", but this did not prevent the Court from concluding that a parent corporation can be held liable for the subsidiary on the basis of the control it exercises. In particular the Court noted that the plaintiff had an arguable case that the parent "controlled" the subsidiary by the following activities:

  • the American parent "managed, directed and controlled" the closure and clean-up of the property;
  • the American parent, in other contexts, had represented that it was responsible for the environmental problem, that the Canadian subsidiary had no authority to deal with the problem and, that any and all decisions regarding the problem would be made by the American parent alone; and
  • the American parent, subsequent to the discovery of the contamination problem, stripped all of the assets out of the Canadian subsidiary.

As a result, the plaintiff’s case was allowed to proceed to trial (which has not yet been held).

E. The US Bestfoods Decision

Under the United States’ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 5 (CERCLA), any person owning or operating a facility at the time a hazardous substance is released to the environment in an unsanctioned manner is strictly liable for the removal and remediation costs associated with the resulting clean-up. The statute and its legislative history offer little guidance on who is considered an "operator," and the Courts have reached mixed conclusions about when parents become liable as "operators".

The US Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in United States v. Bestfoods6, while not involving a foreign subsidiary, is an instructive source of guidance for anticipating parent-subsidiary liability. The Court held, as a basic principle, that a parent corporation cannot be found liable under CERCLA for a subsidiary’s environmental practices merely on account of its active involvement in the subsidiary’s general affairs. This principle has two exceptions, the Court noted. One exception arises where a corporate parent is derivatively liable. That is, the corporate veil between the parent and subsidiary may be pierced where the corporate form would otherwise be misused to accomplish wrongful purposes (e.g., fraud). The Court found no wrongful purpose in this case.

The second exception arises where the parent corporation is directly liable as an "operator" based on the parent’s relationship to the facility (not merely based on the parent’s financial or legal relationship to the subsidiary). The test for direct liability of a corporate parent is "whether, in degree and detail, actions directed to the facility by an agent of the parent alone are eccentric under accepted norms of parental oversight of a subsidiary’s facility."

The Court gave several examples to contrast "accepted norms" with "eccentric" acts. The Bestfoods decision, however, will likely not be the final judicial word on parent liability. The following questions remain unanswered:

  • Is it sufficient for a parent to require its subsidiaries to follow its environmental compliance program in order to avoid liability attaching to the parent?
  • Would liability attach to the parent if it implements policies that require only certain hazardous waste haulers or disposal facilities be used by its subsidiaries?
  • Would it be considered "eccentric" if the parent’s environmental manager conducts environmental compliance meetings at the subsidiary’s facility?

Bestfoods, although not binding on Canadian Courts, was considered by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Beazer. The Court recognized but noted the difference in the relevant legislation. The Court implied that a higher degree of legislative guidance was provided in the British Columbia legislation:

"the U.S. legislation does not have meaningful definition of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘operator’. The U.S. Supreme Court was required to give meaning to those terms without any assistance from the legislative body."

F. The Canadian Cambior Decision

The Canadian case of Recherchés Internationales Quebec v. Cambior Inc.7 involved a Canadian parent and environmental claims arising from its subsidiary in Guyana. In 1998, 23,000 Guyanese attempted to sue Cambior Inc. in a Quebec class action for $69 million for damages from the 1995 release of 3.2 billion litres of cyanide-laced waste into the Essiquibo River. Omai Gold Mines Limited, a Guyanese corporation, owned the mine at the time. Montreal-based Cambior Inc. owned 65% of the Guyanese corporation.

The Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to hear the class action, if granted, because Cambior had significant control over the foreign mine (i.e. it had apparently made decisions in Quebec relating to the construction and operation of the mine, and financed the study which determined that the mining project would be economically feasible).

This finding, however, was a hollow victory for the claimants. The Court found that the Guyana Courts would be a more convenient forum for hearing the tort claim. The Court noted, for example, that the mine and spill effects were in Guyana, the claimants live there, witnesses to the disaster resided mostly in Guyana, and the voluminous documentary evidence was developed in Guyana.

G. The US Bhopal Decision

In 1986, the Government of India and victims of the 1984 factory explosion in Bhopal, India sued New York-based Union Carbide Corporation in the U.S. Federal Court.8 The factory was owned by Union Carbide India Ltd. whose majority shareholder was the Union Carbide Corporation. The New York Court declined jurisdiction to hear this tort claim, stating that "the Indian legal system is in a far better position than the American Courts to determine the cause of the tragic event and thereby fix liability." Aside from noting that the majority of witnesses and evidence were in India, the Court cited the potentially heavy administrative burden on the American tribunal and the high cost to American taxpayers as further factors for hearing the claims in India. The Court nonetheless ruled that Union Carbide "must agree to satisfy any judgement rendered by an Indian Court."

H. The English Cape Asbestos Decision

The English House of Lords recently ruled on whether South African residents could sue in English Courts for tort damages arising in the South African asbestos mines owned by a subsidiary of an English parent corporation9. More than three thousand South Africans sought standing to sue London-based Cape PLC for negligent control of its South African subsidiaries. Cape PLC owned the South African holding company, Cape Asbestos South Africa (Pty.) Limited ("CASAP"), which in turn owned the asbestos mines in South Africa’s Northern Cape Province. The claim involves asbestosis and cancers attributable to exposure to asbestos in the CASAP mines before 1979. Cape PLC ended its operations in South Africa in 1979.

The House of Lords unanimously decided that all the claimants could sue the parent company in England. The House of Lords found that this case concerns the responsibility of the parent company for ensuring the observance of proper standards of health and safety by its overseas subsidiaries. The Court noted that the trial would require particular attention to the parent’s role in the operations of the subsidiaries, whether directors and employees of the parent had knowledge, what actions were taken or not taken by the parent and whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the employees of the subsidiary companies. The evidence, the Court concluded, was documentary in nature and would most likely be found in the offices of the parent corporation. In addition, the Court found it significant that the parent company and its subsidiaries and assets are no longer present or available to be sued in South Africa.


As international trade becomes even more pervasive, corporations need to pay particular attention to the growing case law on the governance of parent and subsidiary corporations. The Courts have demonstrated a willingness to apply corporate and tort law principles in sometimes flexible ways to give remedies to foreign victims of environmental damage. The Courts, for example, are willing to pierce the corporate veil in environmental matters where the parent corporation has exerted too much control over the subsidiary, the facility or even just the site that caused the damage. The Cambior and Cape Asbestos illustrate that the Courts may also hold a parent liable under negligence where the parent knew or ought to have known that the activities of the subsidiaries would cause damage.


  1. Re Oil Spill By The Amoco Cadiz Off The Coast of France On March 16, 1978, MDL Docket No. 376 ND Ill. 1984, American Maritime Cases, 2123-2199.
  2. (2000), Vancouver Registry Doc. L001638 (B.C.S.C.). The full case can be seen at
  3. R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 482, as amended.
  4. (2000), 34 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 116.
  5. 94 Stat. 2767, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
  6. 118 S. Ct. 1876 (1998).
  7. [1998] Q.J. No. 2554.
  8. In Re Union Carbide Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in December 1984 634 F Supp. 842 (SDNY 1986), affd & mod. 809 F 2d 195 (2nd Dist, 1987).
  9. [2000] 4 All E.R. 268.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.