1554080 Ontario Inc. v. Heffner

1554080 Ontario Inc. v. Heffner

Dismissal was warranted because the statement of claim failed to plead material facts required by the EPA, specifically it did not allege that the respondents were owners or had control of the pollutant immediately before the first discharge as required by s.91(1), and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action under r.21.01(1)(b).

Citation
2019 ONCA 211
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): 1554080 Ontario Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Willy Heffner; Respondent (defendant): Heffner Motors Limited; Respondent (defendant): Heffner Auto Sales and Leasing Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Heffner Investments Limited
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Court of Appeal Decision on Rule 21 Motion (dismissal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 99 Environmental Protection Act, Rule 21.01(1)(b) Dismissal for No Reasonable Cause of Action, Rule 21.01(3)(d) Frivolous and Vexatious, Limitations Act, 2002 Defence, Declaration of Contribution and Indemnity
Source Language
English
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Limitations Property and Real Estate Law Section 99 Environmental Protection Act Rule 21.01(1)(b) Dismissal for No Reasonable Cause of Action Rule 21.01(3)(d) Frivolous and Vexatious Limitations Act, 2002 Defence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1554080 Ontario Inc.

Appellant (plaintiff)

Willy Heffner

Respondent (defendant)

Heffner Motors Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Heffner Auto Sales and Leasing Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Heffner Investments Limited

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court of Justice / Court of Appeal Decision on Rule 21 Motion (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action under s.99 of the Environmental Protection Act
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred by not applying Brozmanova v. Tarshis regarding the proper use of Rule 21 for limitations defences
  3. 3 Whether the pleading sufficiently alleged that respondents were owners or persons having control of the pollutant immediately before the first discharge as required by s.91(1) EPA

Ratio Decidendi

Dismissal was warranted because the statement of claim failed to plead material facts required by the EPA, specifically it did not allege that the respondents were owners or had control of the pollutant immediately before the first discharge as required by s.91(1), and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action under r.21.01(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No leave to amend the statement of claim