British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority v. British Columbia (Environmental Appeal Board). País/Territorio Canadá Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Ene 20, 2005 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court Juez McLachlin, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron. Número de referencia [2005] 1 S.C.R. 3 Idioma Inglés Materia Energía, Cuestiones jurídicas, Medio ambiente gen. Palabra clave Principio contaminador-pagador Responsabilidad/indemnización Resumen The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal regarding the effect of the 1965 amalgamation of British Columbia Electric Company Limited ("BC Electric") and two other parties, to create the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("BC Hydro"), the primary generator of electricity in the province. The issue was whether BC Hydro was a responsible person under the Waste Management Act as a result of the actions of BC Electric prior to the 1965 amalgamation. BC Hydro conceded that, if BC Electric were in existence today, it would be a "responsible person" as a result of its involvement with the Oak Street site. A remediation order was issued under the Waste Management Act against NFHC and other past owners and operators of the Oak Street site, but not BC Hydro. On appeal, the Environmental Appeal Board held that BC Hydro was a "responsible person" as it was determined not to be a "responsible person". BC Hydros judicial review application to the British Columbia Supreme Court was unsuccessful but BC Hydro was subsequently successful at the B.C. Court of Appeal. While the legislation under which the disputed order was issued incorporates the polluter pays principle, the principle was not specifically mentioned in the judgment. The Supreme Court did not issue its own reasons, instead adopting the reasons of Justice Rowles, one of the dissenting justices when the matter was heard by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. BC Hydro had conceded that its predecessor would have been a “responsible person” under the Waste Management Act due to its activities at the site. Given that concession, Justice Rowles felt it was unnecessary to deal with the question of retroactive application of the Act and focused on the meaning and effects of corporate amalgamation. BC Hydro had argued that wording in the amalgamation agreement and supporting statute creating it had the effect of protecting it from liability attracted by the companys three predecessor corporations. Justice Rowles disagreed with this argument, indicating that much clearer wording would be required to immunize an amalgamated company from liability for the consequences of acts carried out by its predecessors. As such, the order against BC Hydro requiring remediation was upheld. In its decision, the Supreme Court gave short shift to the reasoning of the majority in the Court of Appeal; its oral decision merely stating that the "appeal is allowed for the reason of Justice Rowles, dissenting in the Court of Appeal, with costs". Texto completo COU-156964.pdf Página web scc.lexum.org