On March 28, 2025, the Superior Court of Quebec rendered an important decision in the case of Canderel Entreprises Inc. v. 9317-9307 Québec Inc., regarding the contamination of a commercial building by hydrocarbons originating from a neighboring property. This dispute, which arose in the context of environmental contamination between neighboring properties, raises fundamental questions regarding environmental liability, neighborhood disturbances, and real estate law.
The facts in brief
In 2017, the plaintiffs, co-owners and managers of a commercial building, discovered hydrocarbon contamination on their property. They attributed this pollution to an adjacent property owned by the defendant, which had been used as a garage and bus parking lot since the 1970s.
Despite several formal notices and in-depth environmental assessments, the defendant denied any responsibility, putting forward various alternative hypotheses, including the presence of historical waste or the contribution of other neighboring sites.
The plaintiffs sought damages for the remediation work and other losses incurred, in addition to a permanent injunction to stop the spread of contaminants to their land.
The Court’s decision
The Court conducted an in-depth analysis of the expert reports submitted by the parties and found that the defendant’s expert report was moderately convincing but lacked rigour and impartiality. The Court therefore accepted the opinion of the Stantec group, which it found to be rigorous, objective, and in accordance with the standards of the provincial Ministry of the Environment. The analysis showed that the contamination likely originated from the neighboring property, via a preferential pathway in the underground rock.
The Court concluded that the persistent contamination of the soil beyond regulatory standards undoubtedly constituted an abnormal neighborhood annoyance within the meaning of Article 976 of the Civil Code of Quebec, giving rise to the right to compensation for inconveniences exceeding the threshold of tolerance. It points out that this is based on the seriousness and recurrence of the damage in this case, rather than on the intention of the owner at fault, as Article 976 of the Civil Code of Québec provides for a no-fault liability regime.
Accordingly, the defendant was ordered to pay more than $3.5 million to the plaintiffs in connection with the remediation work, compensation payments for environmental assessments, and the insurance premium paid. The Court also issued a declaratory judgment to compensate for future rental losses resulting from the decontamination work.
The court further ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction ordering the defendant to take the necessary measures to stop the migration of contaminants and allowing the defendant to submit a remediation plan that complies with the applicable rules. The Court justified granting this injunction by emphasizing that: the disturbance is ongoing, the damage cannot be fully remedied by monetary compensation alone, and immediate action is necessary to limit future environmental impacts.
What this decision teaches us
This decision is particularly significant in that it reinforces the environmental responsibility of property owners by confirming that, even in the absence of proven fault, a property owner may be held liable for the migration of contaminants from their land. It also illustrates the decisive role that scientific evidence plays in this type of litigation: sampling methodology, rigorous analysis, and expert objectivity can tip the scales.
Furthermore, the judgment establishes a permanent injunction as an appropriate tool for ending persistent environmental nuisance, either in addition to or independently of monetary compensation.
Finally, it clearly articulates the concept of “excessive inconvenience” in article 976 C.C.Q. with the regulatory thresholds set out in the Land Protection and Rehabilitation Regulation, thus providing an objective and concrete benchmark for assessing the abnormal nature of a neighborhood disturbance in the context of contamination.
The issues raised by this decision illustrate how complex and far-reaching questions of environmental liability, neighborhood disturbances, and real estate law can be. Whether you are a property owner, property manager, or commercial site operator, our team has the expertise to guide you through the legal challenges related to soil contamination, risk management, and available remedies. Please feel free to contact our firm to discuss your situation—we are here to help you protect your rights and assets with rigour and clarity.