Articles

The SCC’s decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Limited says there are end-of-life remedial obligations associated with a bankrupt’s non-productive wells that have to be addressed. These remedial obligations are a prioritization of the use of the bankrupt’s assets for compliance with its regulatory obligations to clean up under the terms of its licenses.This article provides an overview of the impact of the decision on insolvency professionals and secured creditors.

The potential conflict between federal insolvency law and provincial environmental law that came to a head in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 31, 2019.

In 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and introduced a federal regulatory regime to control the licensing and production of cannabis. However, the Act is largely silent as to the environmental obligations of licensed cultivators and processors (“licensees”). Licensees currently operate in a complex and overlapping environmental regime with significant potential liability. This article provides an overview of a licensee’s key obligations in regard to cannabis waste management.

Secured creditors should engage with the debtor, environmental and insolvency professionals as quickly as possible to protect their investment in collateral. Secured creditors will also need to consider whether it makes sense to risks of regulatory orders if they commence an insolvency process as there is a risk that there will be no distribution to creditors after satisfying environmental obligations.

The Ontario Toxics Reduction Act, 2009 (TRA) provided cost-effective benefits that were distinct and broader in scope than the federal Chemicals Management Plan under CEPA. The TRA had potential to make large reductions in toxic discharges over time, particularly if more of its provisions were brought into force. Despite this, however, Ontario proposed to repeal the TRA by the end of 2021. Doing so, significant transparency in toxics reduction could be lost, as well.

This article provides an overview of the limitations of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018 (the “CTCA”) and recommendations for its implementation in 2019 and beyond. It discusses the public consultation process leading to the enacted CTCA as well as the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks’ compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights.

What level of information does a proponent need to start an EA? This question was addressed in Carhoun and Sons Enterprises ltd. v Canada (Attorney General) . A regulatory authority has considerable discretion when exercising its decision-making authority to issue authorizations under the CEAA when a project proposal is submitted. Early referral of an incomplete application would mean completed applications would have to await processing of incomplete applications to their detriment.

OBA section editors interview David McRobert, former In-house Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 1994-2010.

In Eagleridge International Ltd. v. Newfoundland and Labrador, following a change of government, the new provincial Minister of Environment and Conservation withdrew approval for the construction of a gravel road intended to facilitate mineral exploration on lands and ordered that the project be subject to a full environmental assessment (EA). Eagleridge was entitled to proceed in accordance with the release from the full EA granted by the Minister before the change in government.