3076525 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Environment), 2015 NSSC 137 (CanLII)

This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

A site at 1275 Old Sambro Road in Harrietsfield, Nova Scotia was used for many years as a construction and debris recycling facility—first by RDM Recycling Limited (which later changed its name to 3012334 Nova Scotia Limited) and then by the numbered company 3076525 Nova Scotia Limited (which took over the business name “RDM Recycling”). Operations at the facility created leachate runoff that contaminated the soil and groundwater at the site as well as the well water of a number of Harrietsfield properties. In 2010, Nova Scotia's Minister of Environment issued a Ministerial Order requiring both numbered companies to address the issues and remediate the site. 3076525 Nova Scotia Limited appealed to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The Court determined that the appropriate standard by which to review the Ministerial's decision was the reasonableness standard, and it concluded that the Minister had acted reasonably in relation to all but one clause of the order—clause 7, which concerned 3076525 Nova Scotia Limited’s responsibility for a containment cell that had been built on the property by RDM Recycling. With this in mind, the Court granted the numbered company’s appeal in part, quashed clause 7 of the Ministerial Order, and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration.

To read about other decisions related to this case, go to 3076525 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Environment), 2014 NSSC 85 (CanLII), 3076525 NS v. Minister of the Environment, 2016 NSSC 138 (CanLII), Brown v. Nova Scotia (Environment), 2016 NSSC 319 (CanLII), and 3076525 Nova Scotia Limited v. Nova Scotia (Environment), 2017 NSSC 67 (CanLII).

View the Decision on CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2018/2018nsca70/2018nsca70.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.