- Draft National Wastewater Standards Released
- Proposed Amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
- Federal Government response to comments received on the Proposed Canada-Quebec Agreement implementing federal pulp and paper and metal mining regulations in Quebec
- Order adding Benzyl Chloride to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
- Consultations on Amending the Species At Risk Act: Terrestrial Species
- Replacement Class Screening Report – Aboveground Storage Tanks
- Stronger Air Emissions Standards Now in Effect
- Ontario to Modernize Environmental Approvals Process
- Designation of Renewable Energy Projects and Sources under section 5 of the Green Energy Act, 2009
- Proposal to amend EBR Reg. 73/94 to add the Toxics Reduction Act
- Proposed amendments to O. Reg. 287/07 under the Clean Water Act, 2006
- The Town of Oakville Air Quality By-law
20 Years of Environmental Law at Gowlings
IN THE COURTS
The draft of the proposed Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, to be enacted under the Fisheries Act, were made available for public consultation on February 9, 2010. The proposed regulations will, over time, require more than 4,000 wastewater facilities across Canada to meet national effluent standards, the overarching goal being to stop the direct release of raw sewage into Canadian waters.
While principally targeting municipal wastewater works, the draft Regulations may actually apply to a wider range of facilities, as they would apply to any wastewater systems that (1) have the capacity to deposit 10m3 or more, per day, of effluent via the final discharge point; and (2) deposit at least one of the deleterious substances set out in the draft Regulations in any water frequented by fish, or in any other place where the deleterious substance may enter such water. The deleterious substances prescribed by the regulation include biochemical oxygen demanding matter, suspended solids, total residual chlorine, and un-ionized ammonia.
Agreements are intended to be negotiated between the Government of Canada, provincial governments, and the Yukon government, to lay out the specific roles and responsibilities for reporting, compliance, inspection and enforcement activities. In time, such agreements will also be negotiated with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which are specifically exempted from the application of the proposed regulations along with areas north of the 54th parallel in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, due to the "extreme climatic conditions" found in those areas.
The Regulations are intended to be a key component in implementing the Canada-Wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater that was endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) in 2009. Final Draft Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on March 19, 2010 for more input from stakeholders and interested parties.
To view the draft Regulations please see:
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada released the decision in MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans). The Court found that federal agencies designated as Responsible Authorities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ("CEAA") could not "scope" projects to avoid the application of the Comprehensive Study List Regulations. In attempting to clarify what "scoping powers" were provided for under s.15 of the CEAA, the Court made it clear that while federal authorities can "scope" projects to include more than the activities included in a proponent's project description, they could not "scope" projects so as to include less, with the minimum scope of the project being that as proposed by the project proponent.
On March 29, 2010, the Federal Government tabled the Budget Implementation Bill (Bill C-9). Bill C-9 contained language which would, if passed, would amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act so as to provide the Minister of the Environment with the express authority to limit, or otherwise lessen, the scope of a project for which an environmental assessment is required to be conducted to only "one or more components of that project". Section 2155 of Bill C-9 provides that
The amendments would also allow the Minister to delegate the above "scoping power" to the Responsible Authority in respect of the project – which would appear to be the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court of Canada in MiningWatch said a Responsible Authority could do under the current provisions of the CEAA. This new "scoping power", if passed into law, would apply not only to new projects, but also to projects that are already in the environmental process but which have not yet been scheduled for the more detailed "comprehensive study" process.
Other proposed amendments to the CEAA provided for in Bill C-9 include taking control of environmental assessments for large energy projects away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and giving it to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission or the National Energy Board, depending on who is the Responsible Authority for the project, as well as including, as part of CEAA itself, provisions that are currently found under the Exclusions List Regulations that exempt certain projects from CEAA which are funded by specific federal and other government infrastructure development programs.
For the full text of Bill C-9 please see:
Federal Government response to comments received on the Proposed Canada-Quebec Agreement implementing federal pulp and paper and metal mining regulations in Quebec
On February 6, 2010, Environment Canada published, in Part I of the Canada Gazette, notice of the response to comments received on the Proposed Agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada to proceed to implement the Federal Pulp and Paper and Metal Mining regulations in Quebec.
One submission was received from the Québec Forest Industry Council. The Council requested that the Governments of Canada and Quebec enter into an equivalency agreement on the regulations applicable to the Quebec pulp and paper industry. Environment Canada's response was that while section 10 of CEPA 1999 permits an equivalency agreement with a government which has jurisdiction under a given area, the Fisheries Act, under which the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations are enacted, does not provide such authority. In this regard, the response went on to say that both the Quebec Government and the Government of Canada consider that the draft agreement published in June 2009, which is aimed at implementing the Pulp and Paper Effluent Regulations under the Fisheries Act in Quebec, is a continuation of the federal-provincial cooperation intended to minimize, to the extent possible, the administrative duplication arising from their respective regulations.
To view the submission and the response please see:
On February 27, 2010, an Order adding Benzene, (chloromethyl)-, also known as benzyl chloride, to Schedule I to CEPA, 1999 was publishing by Environment Canada in Part I of the Canada Gazette.
Benzyl chloride is mainly used in the production of benzalkonium chloride, which is a chemical intermediate for the synthesis of other compounds found in numerous products (e.g. hard surface sanitizers, corrosion inhibitors, industrial and institutional cleaners, skin antiseptics, food packaging, and personal care products, etc.). Environment Canada and Health Canada have determined that benzyl chloride may be present as a residual substance in these products and, on the basis of the assessed carcinogenicity of benzyl chloride, for which there is a probability of harm at any level of exposure, it was concluded that benzyl chloride may be entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health. Benzyl chloride was thus proposed to be recommended to be added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 as a toxic substance.
To view the proposed order and the full regulatory impact analysis statement, please see :
Consultations on proposed amendments to the List of Species protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), closed on March 1, 2010 for species undergoing normal consultations. Consultations for species undergoing extended consultations remain open until March 1, 2011. Comments received by these deadlines are considered in the development of the listing proposal.
Terrestrial species subject to consultations that closed on March 1, 2010 included the Oregon Lupine, the Cobblestone Tiger Beetle, Edward's Beach Moth, the Horned Grebe, the Bent Spike-Rush, the California Buttercup, the Slender Popcornflower, the Whip-poor-will, Gray's Desert-parsley, the Pygmy Snaketail, the Band-tailed Pigeon, Snapping Turtle and the White-top Aster. The only terrestrial species subject to extended consultations ending March 1, 2011 is the Western Population of the Horned Grebe, proposed to be designated under Schedule 1 as a species of Special Concern.
The protection that comes into effect following the addition of a species to Schedule 1 depends upon a number of factors, namely the species' status under SARA (Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened or Special Concern), the type of species and where it occurs. However, protection generally entails prohibiting any harm to the species itself or to its habitat, with either recovery strategies, action plans or management plans required, again depending on the species status.
To view the consultation notice and the accompanying consultation document please see:
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for conducting separate consultations for the aquatic species. The only aquatic species currently being considered for addition to Schedule 1 to the Species At Risk Act is the Spring Cisco which is considered endangered. Consultations on the Listing of the Spring Cisco close on April 30, 2010.
For more information on the consultations for aquatic species, visit the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/consultations-eng.htm
On February 26, 2010, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) posted a public notice declaring, at the request of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the report entitled The Installation, Operation, Expansion, Modification, Removal, or Decommissioning of Aboveground Storage Tank Systems (Petroleum or Allied Petroleum Products) to be a replacement class screening report pursuant to subsection 19(2)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The report had previously been open to public consultation from January 8 to February 6, 2010, No written submissions were received by CEAA.
DFO is the largest federal property custodian in the Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador). A number of screening-level assessments are undertaken by DFO for AST projects on an annual basis within the Atlantic Provinces. Most of these projects will be similar in scope and result in a limited range of predictable mitigatable environmental effects. As such, DFO proposed to develop a Replacement Class Screening Report (RCSR) to include all projects involving the installation, operation, expansion, modification, removal and/or decommissioning of AST systems containing petroleum or allied petroleum products on its properties throughout the Atlantic Provinces (the AST projects) within 30m of a water body and/or involve a system capacity greater than 4000L.
The Notice can be viewed at http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=41208 while the report itself can be viewed at http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/document-eng.cfm?document=40420 .
As of February 1, 2010, industrial facilities are required to meet more stringent air quality standards for 33 air contaminants under O. Reg. 419/05 under the Environmental Protection Act.
The new standards apply to the following "high priority" air contaminants: acetone, acetonitrile, acrolein, acrylonitrile, ammonia, chlorine, chloroform, cyclohexane, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, HDI Biuret, HDI Isocyanurate, HDI Polyisocyanate, HDI Monomer, n-Hexane (and hexane isomers), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, isopropanol, lead, MDU Monomer, methylethyl ketone, methyl isocyanate, methylene chloride, mineral spirits, perchloroethylene, phenol, polymeric MDI, propylene oxide, TDI (2,4-), TDI mixed isomers, trichloroethylene and xylenes.
A consolidated version of O. Reg. 419/05 can be viewed at:
On March 2, 2010, the Ministry of Environment released a Discussion Paper outlining a proposed legislative framework for "modernizing" the provincial regulatory approvals process as part of its Innovation Agenda and commitment to Open for Business.
The Ministry's current approvals system, first established in the 1970's, focuses on issuing Certificates of Approval under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). The Paper provides details on a proposed amendments to the EPA and the OWRA that are, among other things, intended to:
- Introduce a new, simplified process for activities that could be categorized as either lower-risk, less-complex or that have standard requirements, while continuing to be protective of the environment and human health;
- Create provisions for single-site, multi-media permits or single, multi-site approvals;
- Provide a new, public electronic environmental registry specific to approvals to support government/business interaction for approvals related processes;
- Strengthen ministerial powers to deal with businesses or facilities with poor compliance records; and
- Improve public transparency through improved reporting and an on-line public information website to access approvals related information.
The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) expects to begin introducing changes to the environmental approvals system by September 2012. Comments on the proposed framework as outlined in the Discussion paper are being sought until April 16, 2010.
To view the discussion paper please see EBR Registry Number 010-9143 at http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTA5MDI3&statusId=MTYzNzE1&language=en
On February 27, 2010, O. Reg. 15/10 made under the Green Energy Act, 2009 (GEA) was published under Part II of The Ontario Gazette.
The Regulation designates the use of photovoltaic technology, under prescribed circumstances, as qualifying as a renewable energy project under the GEA. The Regulation also designates the use of ground source heat pumps and solar thermal systems that heat both air and water, under prescribed circumstances, as qualifying as a renewable energy sources under the Act.
By designating certain projects and energy sources as renewable energy projects and renewable energy sources under the GEA, pursuant to subsection 5(2) of the GEA, a range of municipal by-laws, instruments and other restrictions that could previously restrict the installation of such renewable energy projects/sources are eliminated. Examples of municipal by-laws and other restrictions that may no longer act as barriers to such designated projects include zoning and site planning requirements, height restrictions and setback requirements.
O.Reg. 15/10 also prescribes certain municipal by-laws, instruments and other restrictions that continue to apply despite designation of projects under the regulation as including those by-laws, instruments and other restrictions that relate to:
- The prevention of injury to or the destruction of trees;
- The protection of groundwater;
- The designation and protection, including interim protection, of properties or areas and other matters designated under certain parts of the Ontario Heritage Act; and
- Any activity or matter that is the subject of a regulation made by a conservation authority under certain parts of the Conservation Authorities Act.
O. Reg. 15/10 can be viewed at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_100015_e.htm
Comments on the Ministry of Environment's proposal to amend O. Reg. 73/94 under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 so as to add the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009, among others, closed on February 26, 2010.
If implemented, the amendment will prescribe the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 under sections 3, 6, 9 and 12 of the O. Reg. 73/94, thereby requiring that environmentally significant proposals under the Toxics Reduction Act be posted on the Environmental Registry for a minimum of 30 days, in addition to making proposed regulations under the Toxics Reduction Act subject to applications for review. This amendment would also make the Toxics Reduction Act prescribed for the application for investigation and whistle blower provisions under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. Other Acts slated to be added to O. Reg. 73/94 include the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 and the Food Safety and Quality Act, 2001, which is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA).
To view the Registry posting (#010-8535) please see:
The comment period on the Ministry of Environment's Draft Regulation outlining amendments to O. Reg. 287/07 (the General Regulation under the Clean Water Act, 2006) closed on March 26, 2010.
The proposed amendments include provision for, among other things, a standard form to be prescribed for use for source protection plans, a number of objectives that must be included in each source protection plan, and a wider range of policies that may be included in a source protection plan.
The proposed amendments also act to specify various provincial instruments that will be required to conform to significant threat policies, and have regard to the policies as contained in the source protection plans. The instruments include those issued under the Aggregate Resources Act, Environmental Protection Act, Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, Nutrient Management Act, 2002, Ontario Water Resources Act, Pesticides Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.
Prescribed instruments under the Environmental Protection Act include Certificates of Approval issued under Section 39 of the EPA (for the use, operation, establishment, alteration, enlargement or extension of waste disposal sites or waste management systems), while prescribed instruments under the Ontario Water Resource Act include Permits to Take Water issued under section 34 of the OWRA.
The complete list of prescribed instruments proposed to included under the amendments are outlined in the draft Regulation, which can be viewed at:
On February 1, 2010, Council for the Town of Oakville adopted the Health Protection Air Quality By-law 2010-035, becoming the first municipality in the Province to regulate air quality generally as well as the first level of government to regulate fine particulate matter.
The By-Law requires that all facilities located in the Town that may cause a "major emission" into the air obtain from the Town a facility-specific approval for such emissions, regardless of whether or not the facility holds provincial Certificates of Approval (C of A) (Air) for the air emissions. A "major emission" is defined in the by-law as "an emission from a facility into the air of a health-risk air pollutant that exceeds at least one of the following thresholds:
(a) for directly emitted fine particulate matter, more than 300 kilograms per year;
(b) for volatile organic compounds, more than 10,000 kilograms per year;
(c) for nitrogen oxides (as NO2 equivalent), more than 20,000 kilograms per year;
(d) for sulphur dioxide, more than 20,000 kilograms per year; or,
(e) for ammonia, more than 10,000 kilograms per year."
Both proposed and existing "major emissions" facilities will be required to apply to the Town for approval. The application fee will be $25,000. Existing facilities that do not currently hold a provincial C of A (Air) will have one year to apply for Town approval, while those that do currently hold a provincial C of A (Air) will have two years.
Fine particulate matter is not currently regulated by either the federal or provincial government and the Town of Oakville has stated that the By-law was adopted in an effort to address this gap in current environmental regulations.
To view the By-Law please see:
20 Years of Environmental Law at Gowlings
I am honoured to have been invited to attend and to speak at this event commemorating 20 years of environmental law at Gowlings.
The environmental lawyers at Gowlings are a special group of people who have made and continue to make important contributions to the profession and to the businesses of their clients. Having spent my last five years of practice, that is following the merger of Smith Lyons and Gowlings in their company, I can say without hesitation that the members of the Toronto environmental group, as well as those in other Gowlings offices across the country, were among the finest colleagues that one could hope to have.
I have been asked to comment on the changes that I witnessed in environmental law over the years that I practised. Changes in the law created a demand for environmental legal services that grew from a fairly narrow group of clients to the broad range of clients that environmental lawyers interact with and service today. It is really only in the past 20 years – the 20 years since the environmental law practice at Gowlings was launched and developed – that environmental advice and representation have been essential offerings in a full service commercial law firm.
The story of environmental law is a fairly recent one. While this may be hard to believe, it was only in 1971 that Ontario enacted its first Environmental Protection Act, thanks to the vision and foresight of people like David Estrin.
The EPA was a regulatory statute, providing for provincial offences for pollution and permits and approvals for certain discharges. Until 1986, the maximum fine for an illegal discharge was $5,000 for a first offence and $10,000 for subsequent offences. The regulated community consisted of industries whose activities had a direct impact on the environment; that is, air, water and land. They were companies that discharged into the environment, what I would call, and not in a pejorative sense, the "active polluters". They were in the mining and pulp and paper industries, chemical and petrochemical companies. As one can imagine, with small fines and a close relationship between the regulated community and the regulators, there was not a huge demand for environmental lawyers.
Things began to change in the 1980s. Like many developments in our environmental laws, changes in the law were precipitated by a significant public emergency – think about Walkerton and our safe drinking water laws. The event in this case was the 1979 Mississauga train derailment. More than a hundred railway cars went off the tracks, many of them containing toxic and flammable chemicals. There was a fireball that was visible for 100 km. This led to the largest peace time evacuation in North America until New Orleans.
In response, the provincial government introduced and passed what was called the "Spills Bill" – now Part X of the EPA. But, and this is hard to believe in today's world, the legislation was so controversial that it took six years to be proclaimed in force!
The Spills Bill was controversial because it created liability for those who own or have possession or control of pollutants – that is, liability without regard to fault. Such persons were liable not just for fines, but had an affirmative duty to remediate, and were strictly liable under the statute to third parties for any damages that were caused.
This was a huge change in the law, which opened up a whole new range of potential clients for prospective environmental lawyers. Anyone handling, transporting, storing and disposing of any material that could be considered a pollutant were potential targets of this new law. And so began cradle to grave liability for contaminants.
A year after the Spills Bill was proclaimed in force, the maximum fines were significantly increased and a section was added to the legislation permitting the prosecution of directors and officers of corporations. Environmental law was definitely on the radar for companies and individuals who dealt with hazardous substances – not just the active polluters, but those who handled pollutants. And the client base for environmental lawyers was expanding.
In the 1980s Canada signed some important international treaties. To fulfill its domestic obligations, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was passed to bring into federal law important regulations concerning toxic substances and to regulate the movement of chemicals and other substances across our international borders. Environmental lawyers provided important advice to clients with international operations and Canadian subsidiaries of US corporations to ensure they complied with these important new requirements.
The next development, and in my view a major turning point, occurred in Ontario law in June 1990. Again this was in response to a catastrophic event – the Hagersville tire fire of February 1990. This was history's largest tire fire with more than 12 million tires burning for 15 days. The surface water and shallow groundwater became contaminated with benzene, toluene, xylene, zinc oxide, phenols and ammonia. Compounding the problem were thousands of litres of water dumped on the fire by water bombers and fire fighters, which threatened nearby aquifers.
The fire had been caused by vandals. What led to public outcry however was that the Hagersville site had been subject to administrative orders requiring the removal of the tires. The orders had been ignored and in some cases appealed. The site was in limbo. There was nothing that the government could do to force compliance other than to lay charges. But what would fines accomplish? There was a sense that the government's hands had been tied. They were impotent to prevent and to address this terrible event.
Bill 220 was the legislative response. In record time and with a few very small changes to the wording of the statutes, we achieved in Ontario what I refer to as "Superfund without the fund". It took only three days from first reading of Bill 220 until the amending legislation was proclaimed in force. This was a Liberal government bill that was supported by all three parties – unlike the controversy that had surrounded the Spills Bill fifteen years earlier.
So what did this legislation do? It expanded greatly the range of potential targets for various administrative orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment and created some significant consequences for non-compliance. The range of potential targets for orders would now include both present and past owners and occupants of property, and those with present or past care, management or control. People could receive orders because of their relationship to property and not based on their negligence or fault or even whether they had caused or contributed to the contamination in question.
The fact that targets could include past owners and others meant that it was now impossible to escape liability by disposing of property.
Together with this broadened scope and range of targets, was the important "cost recovery" mechanism. If an order was not complied with, the Ministry of the Environment could undertake the work and recover the costs directly from any one or more of the range of targets. This was called the "polluter pays" principle. However it wasn't just polluters that were targeted.
You can see where this is going – those with the deepest pockets were suddenly very concerned. And into our offices as environmental lawyers flooded a whole new range of clients – any company involved in any way in buying and selling or leasing real estate – banks realizing on their security on a borrower's property – municipalities trying to deal with properties within their boundaries. Environmental issues began to loom very significantly in many commercial transactions, whether it was the leasing of a single gas station site, or the purchase of a commercial loan portfolio.
The law was also employed to pierce the corporate veil, to hold individual directors and officers and sometimes shareholders responsible as parties with control, and to pursue parent and related companies.
In the early days of the legislation the government was testing its limits. Orders were issued and appealed. The law was interpreted and applied on a daily basis both in court and around the boardroom table. These were important and busy times for environmental lawyers.
Meanwhile, our clients adapted. Lenders and municipalities developed internal measures, guidelines and rules respecting realization on their security and more importantly who they would deal with and under what conditions. Companies seeking to acquire a new business or piece of property would conduct environmental due diligence. The Canadian Standards Association released standards for the conduct of environmental site assessments and compliance audits, contributing to the reliability and predictability of these investigative tools.
With improvements in environmental technology both in detecting the levels and nature of contaminants and in remediation techniques, companies were able to negotiate as part of their business deals the appropriate allocation of risk, often including remediation covenants either pre or post closing. Concerns by corporate executives about personal and corporate liability brought environmental issues to the boardroom table to ensure that environmental matters were part of corporate governance.
Before you knew it, environmental lawyers were not the ones everyone was afraid to bring on board for fear of losing the deal; they were at the table as part of the team, often at the earliest stages.
Environmental issues, while becoming more significant, complex and challenging are now perceived as simply one more area of risk to be identified and addressed. Environmental lawyers have developed and continue to employ the necessary tools to help their clients to manage environmental risk.
And out of these changes in the law, new opportunities opened up in the marketplace, with the result that new kinds of clients began to come through our doors – Brownfields developers who, instead of avoiding contaminated properties, actively acquire and recycle them, and clients who offer specialized technologies and equipment for remediation and water treatment. Other new lines of business arose for environmental lawyers and their clients in alternative energy, climate change and emissions trading and environmental products and services.
The environmental laws affecting business in Ontario and the practice of environmental law have seen rapid and significant changes in the past two decades, as environmental issues have moved to the forefront of public concern. This is an exciting and ever-changing field, and one that I very much enjoyed working in, with the opportunity to help clients to address new and challenging problems.
On this occasion celebrating environmental law at Gowlings, I wish my former colleagues at the firm, as well as others that I have had the privilege of working with as clients, consultants and even adversaries, the very best in continuing to meet the challenges of our evolving environmental laws.
Justice Katherine van Rensburg
IN THE COURTS
On March 25 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision declining to grant leave to hear Friends of the Earth Canada's ("FOE Canada") application to hold the federal government accountable for failing to implement the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (passed back in June of 2007).
FOE Canada was seeking leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeals decision of October 15, 2009 which upheld the Federal Trial Courts decision to dismiss FOE Canada's application for judicial review of the federal governments alleged failure to act on or implement certain requirements under The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. No reasons were given in the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the leave to appeal application, filed on December 15, 2009, but costs were awarded as against Friends of the Earth.
For more background on Friends of the Earth and the Court Actions taken by them against the Government of Canada with respect to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act please see:
Gowlings will hold its Environmental Law for Business - 2010 seminar on April 29, 2010. This complimentary full day seminar will be presented by members of the Gowlings' Environmental Law National Practice Group along with guest speakers. As in previous years, there will be a variety of topics. This year topics include: A Regulatory Update on The Green Energy Act; Renewable Energy Opportunities; Canadian Stewardship Programs; Update on Contaminated Sites Legislation; Corporate Environmental Reporting Obligations; New Developments in Environmental Assessments; Climate Law – A Global Regulatory Update; and The Practical Consequences of Climate Law Today.
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.