Environmental Law

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:

Coverage

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.

Remediation

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.

Defence/Recovery

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.

Publications

• Pipeline Predicaments: A Showdown of Environmental Liability in Alberta's Court of Appeal , Brownlee LLP, February 22, 2024
• 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
• 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