CLC lawyers and their firms are available to work independently or, where instructed, in collaboration with one another on the legal aspects associated with environmental pollution. From a legal perspective, there are three crucial elements to an environmental loss:
A primary concern of the Insurer and Insured is to what extent, if any, a particular environmental loss is covered by insurance. Since CLC law firms specialize in providing insurance related services, they all have expertise in coverage issues and are qualified to provide:
- legal analysis of all of the relevant primary, excess and umbrella policies in force with a view to determining the coverage available
- legal advice on loss prevention measures and loss control procedures
- analysis of coverage provisions prior to issuance of the policy
- ongoing advice directed to upgrading existing policy wordings.
The individual firms and lawyers of CLC are available, as well, to assist with site remediation activities including:
- developing and implementing remediation plans
- negotiating acceptance of the remediation plan with Ministry officials
- negotiating settlements with injured third parties
- liaising with local authorities, the public and the media.
These remediation programs include:
- site excavation
- containment and treatment of contaminants
- pump removal and/or flushing of contaminants.
Throughout this process, the independent law firms work with appropriate experts and investigation teams, all of whom form an integral part of the remediation program.
The third critical element of concern is to ensure that the potential for Defence/Recovery is given utmost priority from first notification of the loss. This includes:
- determining the precise cause and source of the loss as quickly as possible
- the development and preservation of relevant evidence.
Each CLC law firm has acted for and against numerous parties that have caused or contributed to environmental losses, including:
- previous owners of the land
- owners of the contaminant, the land and/or the containers from which the contaminant escaped
- polluting corporations and their officers and directors
- lending institutions, manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of defective equipment
- installers who improperly installed the equipment.
CLC Counsel is uniquely positioned to provide Canada-wide legal assistance with regard to all the elements of an environmental loss and related coverage issues.
- Alberta Court Refuses to Grant Indefinite Limitation Period for Environmental Liabilities , Brownlee Law, May 18, 2022
- ALERT: Federal Government’s Continued Commitment to Establishing a Canada Water Agency , Brownlee Law, April 14, 2022
- Improperly sued? Can you recover costs if the action is dismissed? Rule 23.05 , McCague Borlack LLP, February 03, 2022
- All-Inclusive and Without Costs Rule 49 Offers , McCague Borlack LLP, June 29, 2021
- Loss of Care, Guidance, and Companionship Damages: A New Benchmark? Case Study: Moore et al., v. 7595611 Canada Corp. , McCague Borlack LLP, June 28, 2021
- Being Proactive with Environmental Claims - Case Study: Albert Bloom Limited v. London Transit Commission , February 26, 2021
- Silence is not golden when it comes to contracts - Case Study: C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger , January 08, 2021
- A Primer on Limitation Periods in Alberta , Whitelaw - Twining, December 17, 2020
- Jury Questions: When to Ask for Reasons - Case Study: Cheung v. Samra 2020 ONSC 4904 , September 26, 2020
- The Court exercises its "Fact Finding Powers" - Case Study: Carmichael v. GSK Inc. , September 26, 2020
- Ontario Courts updating online infrastructures to accommodate COVID-19 needs for safety , August 11, 2020
- Updates around Civil Matters in the Superior Court of Justice in the Central East Region , August 10, 2020
- Corrosion Exclusion II - Resulting Physical Damage An exception to the exclusion in case: MDS Inc. v Factory Mutual Insurance , McCague Borlack LLP, July 03, 2020
- Corrosion exclusion denied due to ambiguity: This author disagrees with the determination in case: MDS Inc. v Factory Mutual Insurance , McCague Borlack LLP, June 24, 2020
- A Plea for Simple Pleadings , McCague Borlack LLP, May 31, 2020
- COVID-19: Business interruption – Tangible property and loss of use in the Ontario Courts , McCague Borlack LLP, April 29, 2020
- Beware of Presumption of Management or Control of a Director - Case Comment: Alizadeh v Ontario , January 30, 2020
- The Test for Misfeasance of Public Office: Case Comment: Capital Solar Power v OPA , November 12, 2019
- Is anyone ensuring that your Mink Lashes are cruelty-free? An Overview of the Regulation of Fur Farming in Canada , March 21, 2019
- To Warn or Not To Warn: An Explanation of the Duty to Warn and the Reasonable Foreseeability Analysis: Case Comment: Maxrelco (Immeubles) v Lumipro Inc. , June 29, 2018
- Common Interest Privilege: A New Tool in the Litigation Basket , May 25, 2018
- Insurer's Duty of Good Faith will not be expanded by Supreme Court Case Comment: Usanovic v. Penncorp , First Published to MB's Client List, January 09, 2018
- Ontario Court of Appeal releases decision in expert evidence case , MB Newsletter, January 29, 2015
- Part II: Litigating Oil Leak Claims: Trucking and Marine Accidents: Oils Spills and Liability for Environmental Remediation , Presented at MB's Environmental Law Seminar, October 03, 2012