In the most recent case interpreting s. 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Court found, on a summary dismissal application, that the duly diligent purchaser had no remedy against the solvent, possible polluter because of the prejudice from the passage of time. The Court appears to have misinterpreted "adverse effect" for "substance release". For the full commentary see here. See further commentary by the Canadian Underwriter here and the Insurance Institute of Canada It's not Dead, it's Resting Rob Omura 04/10/2017
In the most recent case interpreting s. 218 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, the Court found, on a summary dismissal application, that the duly diligent purchaser had no remedy against the solvent, possible polluter because of the prejudice from the passage of time. The Court appears to have misinterpreted "adverse effect" for "substance release". For the full commentary see here. See further commentary by the Canadian Underwriter here and the Insurance Institute of Canada