Canada: Limitation Periods In Contaminated Land Cases: Ontario Court Of Appeal Provides Some Answers But Leaves More Questions For Environmental Lawyers And Their Clients

On January 11, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its decision in Crombie v. McColl-Frontenac Inc. We had previously commented on the decision of the motions court that granted summary judgment in the matter. The OCA reversed the motions court decision. In doing so, and as so often happens, it answered some of the questions raised by the lower court decision, opened up some new questions and left some longstanding questions unanswered.

A quick recap of the facts

The plaintiff, Crombie, was in the midst of purchasing a property. Phase I information available to Crombie from the early days of the transaction disclosed that a neighbouring property was a gas station that had been decommissioned some years before. A Record of Site Condition had been obtained for the former gas station property confirming the property had been remediated to standards applicable at the time. Crombie also had older Phase II information for the property being considered for purchase, indicating the property had some petroleum hydrocarbon contamination that complied with the site condition standards applicable at the time of the report. The standards had since changed and Crombie was advised by his consultants that a new Phase II report would be required to determine whether the proposed Crombie Property met the currently applicable standards.

Crombie commissioned a new Phase II but decided to go firm on the purchase before a new Phase II report was issued.

Crombie claimed to have found out the site exceeded the applicable standards after going firm on the deal and sued the neighbour and former owner and operator claiming both negligence and continuing negligence.

The Defendants were successful at first instance in obtaining summary judgment. The motions court found that Mr. Crombie had actual knowledge of the contamination more than two years before the claim was issued. The motions court also granted summary judgment on the continuing tort claim thus bringing all of Crombie's claims to an end.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal reversed the motions court decision on the grounds that two palpable errors of law had been made by the motions court. First, the court concluded that "it was a palpable and overriding error for the motion judge to equate knowledge of potential contamination with knowledge of actual contamination". Secondly, the court found that it was also a "palpable and overriding error for the motion judge to fail to take into consideration the multi-party transaction and Crombie's waiver of conditions, in her assessment of what Crombie knew or ought to have known about hydrocarbon contamination at the property two years before it commenced its action."


One key area of disagreement between the motions court and the Court of Appeal was on whether or not Crombie had actual knowledge of the Phase II results before April of 2012. The motions court found that he had and made what amounts to a finding of credibility against Crombie on this point. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

It is not productive to argue over which court made the correct finding of fact on the evidence before it. Courts will of course differ on such facts but the very disagreement does highlight an area of frailty in a summary judgment procedure that tries to evaluate questions of credibility in the context of affidavit evidence on a motion. More important, however, are the implications of how the Court of Appeal chose to deal with the underlying legal principles including the ones it elected to make no comment upon.

Did Crombie Have a Cause of Action at all?

A longstanding principle of law, referred to by the Latin maxim "Volenti non fit injuria" is that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort. Neither the motions court nor the Court of Appeal decision contains any discussion of this principle and its implications for Crombie's claim. If, as found by the motions court, Crombie knew or should have known of the contamination before going firm, then was he not voluntarily assuming the risk of such contamination in deciding to buy the property anyway? Conversely, if one accepts the Court of Appeal's finding that Crombie decided to go firm after ordering a Phase II report but before becoming aware of the results, did Crombie, in doing so, not therefore voluntarily assume the risk that the results of the Phase II might be unfavourable? Under either scenario, has not Crombie voluntarily assumed the risk the property would be contaminated? If so, then why does the principle of Volenti non fit injuria not act as an absolute bar to Crombie's right to assert a claim in the first place?

Since the issue was not touched upon by either court, one assumes the principle might still be open to argument at trial.

Is there a different standard of transactional due diligence for multi-property purchases?

Much emphasis was placed by the Court of Appeal on the failure of the lower court to take into account the "context" of the acquisition by Crombie in establishing what was reasonable for him to have known under the circumstances. In particular, the Court of Appeal found it was significant that the property in question was one of 22 being acquired and criticised the lower court for not taking this into consideration:

"The problem with this reasoning is that it ignores completely the circumstances of the multi-property transaction Crombie was involved in, the due diligence process and the waiver of conditions. Nowhere in her reasons did the motion judge refer to the fact that Crombie was involved in purchasing 22 properties. This was part of the context in which Crombie's knowledge ought to have been assessed, and the failure to mention such circumstances was an important omission. Further, although the motion judge referred to March 9, the date when Crombie waived conditions and proceeded with the purchase of the property (later she referred to this as a waiver of the "environmental condition"), she did not factor Crombie's waiver of conditions into her assessment of its conduct."

The implications of this approach could prove to be rather far-reaching in the context of an analysis of what constitutes due diligence in the context of purchase of land and possible other fields as well. Is the court suggesting that a purchaser of multiple properties is to be held to a lower standard of care in conducting due diligence on properties being acquired than a purchaser of a single property? If this is part of the "context" to be taken into account in assessing constructive knowledge (and therefore due diligence), where does it end? Would such reasoning serve to suggest that a large corporation with hundreds of employees is to be held to a lower standard of care in exercising its health and safety due diligence obligations than an employer of, say, only six people? Is this an invitation to start down a slope that leads to willful blindness on the part of purchasers of real estate portfolios? Put bluntly, should how busy someone chooses to make themselves be relevant to the due diligence they are expected to exercise?

Has the standard for establishing constructive knowledge been raised?

In parsing through the Court of Appeal's reasoning on the issue of constructive knowledge, it might be useful to revisit an older decision of the same court involving the purchase of land – a 1996 decision often referred to as 'Tony's Broadloom". In that case, the purchaser elected not to make various environmental inquiries before closing but brought an action against the vendor upon discovering contamination post-closing. In Tony's Broadloom, the Ontario Court of Appeal made the following finding:

"A reasonable inspection of the property, reasonable inquiries of the respondents, and reasonable inquiries of the local and provincial authorities would have put the appellants on notice of the existence of the contaminant. Indeed, had the appellants pursued the taking of soil samples with reasonable diligence after the respondents had permitted them to take those samples, they would have learned of the existence of the contaminant before closing. Instead, the appellants chose not to disclose their intended use of the property and to take no steps to satisfy themselves that the property could be used for that purpose."

While there are a number of special rules that apply in the context of a dispute between a vendor and purchaser of land that do not apply to a dispute between a purchaser and a neighbour, one would expect the principles of constructive knowledge in the context of a real estate acquisition to be consistent regardless of whether the buying plaintiff is suing the vendor or a neighbour.

Yet Tony's Broadloom appears to suggest a much more liberal test for imputing knowledge than that applied in Crombie. It is remains to be seen whether Crombie is the beginning of a trend requiring a much higher standard for finding constructive knowledge in the context of the purchase of contaminated lands.

Who has the onus of proof of a continuing tort on a summary judgment motion?

While the Court of Appeal chose not to comment on the question of the onus of proof in continuing tort cases, it did refer, without any comment, to the decision in Sanzone v. Schechter from earlier in 2016 as having been cited to it by the Plaintiff. That decision is consistent with the view that, absent any evidence by either party on a point pleaded in the claim, summary judgment should not be granted against the plaintiff on that point. Such a result is contrary to the finding made by the motions judge but, as explained in our earlier commentary on the motions decision, appears to be consistent with first principles and the principle that a party bringing forward a properly made pleading is entitled to a trial unless challenged by appropriate evidence.


The Court of Appeal's decision in McColl v. Frontenac is the latest word on the question of the discoverability of an environmental claim in the context of the purchase of land. Trite though it may be to say so, it is unlikely to be the last.

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