Canada: Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) Of The EPA Applied: Some Thoughts On Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819


Ontario's Court of Appeal awarded damages for migration of petroleum hydrocarbons onto a neighbouring property in Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson under a seldom applied section of the Environmental Protection Act, section 99. Midwest is also the most recent case in the interpretation and application of the "polluter pays" doctrine.

On January 26, 2016, Thorco Contracting Limited and Mr. Thordarson filed their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


The appellant, Midwest Properties Ltd. and the respondent, Thorco Contracting Limited, own adjoining properties in an industrial area of Toronto. Thorco stored large volumes of PHCs on its property dating back to 1974.

Prior to its purchase of the property, Midwest obtained a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the property and was advised that further investigation was not required. Subsequently, Midwest became interested in acquiring the Thorco property. Environmental reports provided by its owner, John Thordarson, disclosed PHC contamination in the soil and groundwater. Further testing disclosed that PHCs exceeding the MOECC Standards had migrated on to the Midwest property. Midwest sued Thorco and John Thordarson, relying upon three causes of action: (i) breach of the EPA section 99(2), (ii) nuisance, and (iii) negligence. Evidence at trial established that the contamination at the Midwest property was getting worse. The cost to remediate the Midwest property was estimated at $1.3 million.

Between 1988 and 2011, Thorco was in almost constant breach of compliance orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment. In 2000, Thorco and Thordarson were convicted by the Ontario Court Provincial Division of EPA offences, including counts of failing to dispose of wastes in excess of the maximum permitted quantities specified in its Certificate of Approval obtained in 1988, failing to submit financial assurance, and failing to ensure proper storage of materials on the property. A court order was issued but at the time of the trial, the respondents were still in breach of both the Ministry and Provincial Court orders.

Trial Judgment

The trial judge in this civil action held that respondents Thorco and Thordarson were not liable under any of the causes of action pleaded (Midwest v. Thordarson, 2013 ONSC 775). She found that Midwest failed to prove that it had suffered damages, in particular because it had not proven that the PHC contamination lowered the value of its property. In addition, she ruled that because the Ministry had already ordered Thorco to remediate Midwest's property, a remedy under EPA section 99(2) was not available to Midwest because it could result in double recovery.

Ontario Court of Appeal Decision

1 EPA Section 99(2)

Midwest appealed the decision on the grounds that the court had misapplied EPA, section 99(2) among other things. Section 99 provides in part:

(2) Her Majesty in right of Ontario or in right of Canada or any other person has the right to compensation,

(a) for loss or damage incurred as a direct result of,

(i) the spill of a pollutant that causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect ...

from the owner of the pollutant and the person having control of the pollutant. (emphasis added)

The Court of Appeal noted that this section, enacted over 35 years ago, brings a private right of action that is designed to "overcome the inherent limitations in the common law in order to provide an effective process for restitution to parties whose property has been contaminated."

The Court addressed the purpose of section 99 by reviewing the history of the EPA Part X. The Appellate Court said that Part X, commonly referred to as the Spills Bill, has two main goals. The first goal is to minimize the harm caused by the discharge of pollutants by requiring prompt reporting and clean-up by the party who owned or controlled the pollutant, regardless of fault. The second goal is to ensure that parties who suffer damage through the discharge of pollutants are compensated by the establishment of a statutory right of recovery from the parties who owned or controlled the pollutant.

At trial Thordarson and Thorco argued that since they were already subject to Ministry orders to remediate Midwest's property, an award of damages equivalent to the cost of remediation would create the opportunity for double recovery. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge:

In my view, the trial judge's interpretation undermines the legislative objective of establishing a separate, distinct ground of liability for polluters. It permits a polluter to avoid its no-fault obligation to pay damages solely on the basis that a remediation order is extant. The purposes of the EPA would be frustrated if a defendant could use an order as a shield. Such an interpretation would also discourage civil proceedings, and may even discourage officials from issuing remediation orders for fear of blocking a civil suit. (para. 49)

The Appeal Court went on to state that there is no language in section 99(2) to support the trial judge's conclusion that a party cannot advance a civil claim under the section where the owner or person in control of the pollutant is already subject to a Ministry order.

The Court of Appeal also pointed to the fact that Thordarson and Thorco had not cleaned up their property nor Midwest's property despite being ordered to do so in 2012, thus making the chances of double recovery remote. The Court noted that the Ministry had intervened in the appeal and had "agreed that it would be forced to redirect its remediation order in the event that the respondents were ordered to pay remediation damages to Midwest".

2 Measure of Damages under Section 99(2)

In assessing the measure of damages that should be awarded under section 99(2), the Appeal Court said that courts recently have awarded damages based on restoration costs, even where those costs exceed the amount of the decrease in property value. The Court concluded that the restoration damage award approach is superior from an environmental perspective to the diminution in value approach. The Appeal Court stated:

... restricting damages to the diminution in the value of property is contrary to the wording of the EPA, the trend in the common law to award restorative damages, the polluter pays principle, and the whole purpose of the enactment of Part X of the EPA. It would indeed be a remarkable result if legislation enacted to provide a new statutory cause of action to innocent parties who have suffered contamination of their property did not permit the party to recover the costs of remediating their property, given the EPA's broad and important goals of protecting and restoring the natural environment. (para. 70)

3 Nuisance

The Court of Appeal rejected the Respondents' argument that compensation under section 99(2) is dependent upon the establishment of an actionable nuisance that requires proof of physical injury to the land or substantial interference with the use or enjoyment of the land, in order to claim damages. Once again, the Court stated that section 99(2) is a separate, distinct ground of liability for polluters:

I am not persuaded that, in order to succeed in its claim under s. 99(2), Midwest is required to prove an actionable nuisance. As noted above, the purpose of enacting s. 99(2) was to provide a flexible statutory cause of action that superimposed liability over the common law. In so doing, the Legislature recognized the inherent limitations of the common law torts of nuisance and negligence. This new cause of action eliminated in a stroke such issues as intent, fault, duty of care, and foreseeability, and granted property owners a new and powerful tool to seek compensation. (para. 73) (emphasis added)

4 Personal Liability

Mr. Thordarson sought to avoid personal liability by relying on the "corporate veil" argument that the liability should stop with Thorco. Section 99(2) provides that an action lies against the owner of the pollutant and the person who controls the pollutant. The Court had no difficulty in finding Mr. Thordarson in "control" of the pollutant:

Thorco is a small business whose day-to-day operations are effectively controlled by one person—Mr. Thordarson. His evidence at trial established that it was he who applied for the Certificate of Approval from the MOE and that he was responsible for both the material being brought on to [the Thorco property] and its storage on the property. (para. 88)

As a consequence, pursuant to section 99(8) of the EPA, the Appeal Court held Thorco and Mr. Thordarson jointly and severally liable for the damages under section 99(2).

5 Punitive Damages

The Court of Appeal said that the law clearly provides that punitive damages cannot be awarded where a statutory cause of action only provides for compensatory damages as in the case of section 99(2), since punitive damages are, by their nature, non-compensatory. In order for punitive damages to be available in this case it was necessary for the Appeal Court to decide that the trial judge erred in dismissing the nuisance and negligence claims brought by Midwest. The Appeal Court found:

... the trial judge erred in dismissing these claims on the basis that damage had not been established. There was uncontradicted evidence at trial that established a diminution in the value of the appellant's property and a human health risk. Nowhere in her reasons did the trial judge consider the evidence. Instead she made findings that damage had not been established without reference to the evidence at trial. (para 98)

According to the Appeal Court, it did not matter that the experts had failed to quantify the damage incurred. Quantification of damages was not required to establish that Midwest suffered damage compensable under the law of nuisance and negligence.

The Appeal Court pointed out that the environmental condition of the Midwest property had deteriorated since Midwest acquired it in 2007:

There was uncontradicted evidence that after December 2007 there was a qualitative difference in the PHC contamination. In monitoring well 102, free product was not detected in 2008, but was detected in 2011; in monitoring well 107, free product was not detected in 2011 but was detected in 2012. The evidence of Mr. Tossell was that it was more expensive and challenging for a remediator to remove free product. Thus the evidence established that the PHC contamination grew worse and more expensive to fix after the appellant acquired [the Midwest property] in 2007 (para 104)

As for Mr. Thordarson, the Court of Appeal said "there is no question that he was intimately and equally involved in the conduct which was both a nuisance and negligent."

Having determined that the Court could award punitive damages, it set out the general objectives of punitive damages, to punish, to deter, and to denounce a defendant's conduct. The Appeal Court said:

On the facts of this case a punitive damages award was clearly warranted. Thorco's history of non-compliance with its Certificate of Approval and MOE orders, and its utter indifference to the environmental condition of its property and surrounding areas, including Lake Ontario, demonstrates a wanton disregard for its environmental obligations. This conduct has continued for decades and is clearly driven by profit. Mr. Thordarson testified at trial that one of the reasons he did not comply with the 22,520 gallon limit on waste in the Certificate of Approval, when that certificate was issued in 1988, was that he was not aware of an economical way of doing so. (para 122)

Midwest was awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, $50,000 from each of Thorco and Mr. Thordarson. In addition, judgment was rendered against both respondents jointly and severally for $1,328,000 for damages under section 99(2) of the EPA.

Some Observations and Thoughts

The Midwest decision has garnered a lot of attention. The following are some observations and thoughts by Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers for your consideration.

1 Plaintiffs have regularly pleaded the EPA section 99(2) for years; now they may actually achieve success on that basis.

2 By pleading section 99(2), success is not guaranteed. Indeed, careful attention should be paid to the facts of each case. In Midwest, there were some key facts worth noting.

a) Prior to its purchase, Midwest obtained an environmental assessment for its property that advised that further investigation was not required.

b) Since no contamination was thought to be present at the Midwest property at the time of purchase, Midwest presumably paid a "clean" fair market value for the property.

c) Midwest only became aware of the contamination when it took an interest in acquiring the neighbouring property and conducted environmental tests.

d) From 1988 through 2011, Thorco was in almost constant breach of compliance orders issued by the Ministry, and

e) While the Ministry had issued orders against Thorco and Mr. Thordarson, double recovery could be avoided if a damage award was made by the court.

3 Under section 99(2) a person has the right to compensation for loss or damage incurred as a direct result of the spill of a pollutant that causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect. It is interesting to note that there was no discussion by the Appeal Court in Midwest about "the spill of a pollutant" nor about "adverse effect". Presumably, the Court assumed, absent a solid evidentiary basis, that a "spill" (as defined in the EPA) had occurred that "caused an adverse effect".

4 Will a section 99(2) remedy be available for historic contamination, in contrast to ongoing migration from the source?

5 Damage awards based on restoration costs may be preferred over awards for diminution in the value of the property - even where restoration costs exceed the amount of the decrease in property value. This is interesting particularly in light of the analysis in Cousins v. McColl-Frontenac Inc., 2007 NBCA 83.

6 Personal liability for environmental damage will apply under section 99(2) where it can be shown that the impugned person had "control" of the pollutant spilled.

7 Punitive damages may be awarded where a common law cause of action is made out and the party in control of the pollutant demonstrates "wanton disregard for its environmental obligations".

8 The Appeal Court did not require Midwest to use the judgment funds to actually conduct the clean up on its property. Assuming Midwest does clean up, what is to prevent recontamination? If the defendants fail to remediate the Thorco site or fail to install a barrier, what will prevent recontamination of the Midwest property, presuming it is cleaned? Will that give rise to a new claim by Midwest?

And, in closing, a most important question: is the Smith v Inco restrictive interpretation of the common law environmental torts overturned given the more recent decisions in Canadian Tire and Midwest? Has the pendulum swung yet again?

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions