Panel: Robert Wickett, Q.C., Cindy Derkaz, Blair Lockhart
Keywords: abandonment; minor contributor
There were four appeals, two brought by Domtar Inc. and two bought by Seaspan ULC, with respect to a contaminated site in North Vancouver.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Seaspan advised, in a supplemental statement of points, that it would be claiming the status of “minor contributor” for a portion of the contaminated site, as an alternative argument to its argument that it is not a “responsible person” for these parcels. Seaspan argued that no amendment to its Notice of Appeal was required. The other parties objected to Seaspan’s application for “minor contributor” status, and provided written submissions on this matter in the two weeks prior to the hearing. A ruling on Seaspan’s application was to be made by the Board at the hearing. On the second day of the hearing, the Board denied Seaspan’s application for “minor contributor” status.
The hearing then proceeded with Seaspan presenting its case first with respect to the two appeals. On the third day of hearing, Seaspan abandoned one of its appeals entirely, and abandoned most of its other appeal, except for two remaining grounds. Domtar also abandoned one of its appeals entirely, and abandoned most of its other appeal except for two remaining grounds. Seaspan and Domtar’s remaining grounds of appeal were adjourned generally.