In 2014, Metrus Properties sued Wrigley Canada claiming
Wrigley's neighbouring property had contaminated its property.
When Wrigley asked to access the Metrus property to conduct
environmental tests, Metrus refused. In April of 2016, the Superior
Court of Justice granted an injunction to temporarily prevent
Metrus from redeveloping its property and also ordered access to
Metrus's property to allow Wrigley to conduct environmental
Metrus refused access and opposed the motion for two reasons:
Metrus argued that Wrigley could use the existing test results done
by both the tenant at the Metrus property, and by Metrus itself; it
further argued that it needed to carry out the excavation work to
finally rent or otherwise develop the property.
The court did not give much weight to either of the arguments.
It concluded that the rules authorizing an inspection should be
applied liberally: as long as there is a reasonable possibility
that the inspection will reveal something useful, then the
inspection should be ordered. The court also noted that the purpose
of an inspection order is to ensure that a party does not have to
rely entirely on the other side's evidence. Allowing Wrigley to
test would "level the playing field between experts".
The court considered if it could order Metrus to stop work at
its property, to allow for the testing. Injunctions are
extraordinary remedies. However, the court concluded that if Metrus
completed its excavation work, it would cause "irreparable
harm" to Wrigley. Metrus planned extensive excavations and any
environmental testing after the fact would be conducted in a very
different environment than the one that existed during prior
testing. Further, any delay in Metrus' redevelopment plans was
the fault of Metrus, who refused earlier access and did not warn
Wrigley that it intended to conduct excavations at the site.
At the end of the day, this application comes
down to simple fairness. Metrus has sued Wrigley on the basis that
[volatile organic compounds ("VOCs")] seeped from the
Wrigley Property to the Metrus Property. Metrus has refused to
allow Wrigley to access in order to test. Wrigley asked for access
at a time when it did not know that Metrus was about to excavate
– but Metrus obviously did. Metrus could have allowed Wrigley
to test at that time without disrupting the construction schedule.
I am aware that Metrus is anxious to do something with the Metrus
Property, but the Metrus Property has not been generating income
since 2011. Although I certainly do not have to decide this issue
on the injunction, the evidence is thin, at best, that Wrigley ever
generated any VOCs while making chewing gum. Fairness requires that
Wrigley be given the opportunity to conduct its own tests. I also
find it would be unfair to make Wrigley pay for whatever penalties
and costs Metrus incurs with its construction sub-contractors as a
result of this interim injunction when this situation is to a
significant degree, the result Metrus's own making.
So what's the take away message? When you
sue someone and refuse to let them access the evidence, do not
expect a sympathetic court.
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 Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change continues to roll out its Climate Change Action Plan with its proposed GHG guide for projects that are subject to the province's Environmental Assessment Act.
The Imperial Oil refinery pled guilty to one offence for discharging a contaminant, coker stabilizer, thermocracked gas, into the natural environment causing an adverse effect and was fined $650,000...
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).