Beznec v. Apocan Inc., 1996 CanLII 4715 (NB QB)

This case was heard in the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench (Trial Division).

Mr. Beznec owned property next to a mining site that was leased and operated by Apocan Inc. ("Apocan"). In 1992, Mr. Beznec indicated to Apocan that the water on his property was contaminated. With the help of an agent working for the Department of Natural Resources, Mr. Beznec also brought the contamination to the attention of the Mining Commissioner.

The Mining Commissioner contacted Apocan and eventually reported back to Mr. Beznec that the mining company was prepared to purchase and install a water treatment device on Mr. Beznec’s property if Mr. Beznec agreed not to pursue any further claims against the company. Mr. Beznec rejected the mining company’s proposal, and so the Mining Commissioner arranged a “pre-hearing conference” between the parties. At the meeting, the parties discussed a settlement agreement.

Roughly three months later, Mr. Beznec signed a settlement agreement that provided him with a cash settlement and a payment that covered the cost of a water treatment system, and that also stated that Mr. Beznec would not pursue any further claims against Apocan.

When the water treatment system did not solve the problem with Mr. Beznec’s water, Mr. Beznec requested a formal hearing. At the hearing, the Mining Commissioner held that Mr. Beznec had entered into the settlement agreement with his “eyes open,” and that there was no evidence of duress, undue influence, or inequality of bargaining power. The Mining Commissioner saw no reason why Mr. Beznec’s agreement not to pursue any further claims against Apocan should not be binding, and so Mr. Beznec’s was barred from pursing further claims against Apocan.

Mr. Beznec applied for judicial review of the Mining Commissioner’s decision. After reviewing the history of the proceedings, the Court held that there were two reasons for quashing the Mining Commissioner’s decision: (1) that the Mining Commissioner should not have conducted the hearing himself after making suggestions to Apocan about how to proceed; and (2) that there was in fact inequality of bargaining power between the parties, as Mr. Beznec had poor English-language skills and had signed the settlement agreement without the benefit of legal representation. For these reasons, the Court quashed the Mining Commissioner’s decision and held that Mr. Beznec was not barred from pursuing further claims against Apocan.

To read a related decision, go to Beznec v. Apocan Inc., 1998 CanLII 9810 (NB QB).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbqb/doc/1996/1996canlii4715/1996canlii4715.html

Disclaimer:
Case briefs in our Resource Library are drafted by law students who work or volunteer with East Coast Environmental Law, and East Coast Environmental Law does not guarantee their fullness or accuracy. Library users should not rely on case briefs as comprehensive accounts of the issues, facts, reasoning, or outcomes at stake in any given case. 

If you require more detailed information about a court decision or legal issue, please consider using our Environmental Law Inquiry Service to request information from our staff.