In the recent decision Transport CJZ inc. c.
Ministre de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les
changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs,¹
the Administrative Tribunal of Québec
(“ATQ“) quashed three notices of claim
totalling more than $230,000 issued against Transport CJZ by the
Minister for clean-up and restoration costs following a hydrocarbon
spill in Lac Bouchette, located in the
Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region. This decision provides
important clarifications on the conditions for the recovery of
environmental intervention costs when there are multiple sources of
contamination. More specifically, the ATQ held that when there are
multiple sources of contamination, the Ministry (that is, the
Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les
changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, hereinafter the
“Ministry“) must be able to prove each
party’s respective share of liability in order to claim
environmental intervention costs from them.

On May 14, 2020, following an anonymous report, the authorities
discovered a hydrocarbon spill in Lac Bouchette. The preliminary
inspection revealed significant contamination along approximately
225 metres of shoreline, affecting roughly a dozen properties
bordering the lake.² The Ministry quickly appointed a
specialized company to carry out work for the containment and
recovery of contaminants. A total of 606 metric tonnes of
contaminated soil were excavated.³

Sections 115.0.1 and 115.1 of the Environment Quality
Act⁴ give the Ministry authority to act in place of
responsible parties and to intervene directly when contaminants are
released into the environment. Under these provisions, the Ministry
can take all necessary measures to clean, collect or contain
contaminants when such measures are required to avert or diminish a
risk of adverse effects on the environment or public health. The
Ministry can then claim the direct and indirect costs of its
intervention from the person who has (or had) custody or control of
the contaminants, or who is responsible for their release into the
environment. The Ministry bears the burden of proving the identity
of the liable party on a balance of probabilities.⁵

In this context, the Ministry first singled out Transport CJZ
inc., a heavy haulage company with a garage next to the lake, as
being solely liable.⁶ Key to this conclusion was the
presence of a very strong diesel odour on the company’s
property, the fact that the soil next to the garage was visibly
contaminated, and the presence of a gully running towards the
lake.[7] The
Ministry thus issued an initial notice of claim totalling
approximately $42,000 for clean-up, restoration and soil
characterization costs. Two further notices of claim were then
issued, bringing the total to more than $230,000.⁸

However, a subsequent investigation by the Ministry revealed
that the situation was more complex. Although the presence of
contaminants in the environment and the need for the Ministry to
intervene were not disputed, Transport CJZ contested the finding
that it had custody or control of the contaminants released into
the lake.⁹ In fact, a neighbouring garage, Garage
Boulianne, had been identified as a potential source of
contamination, in particular through its storm sewer system that
emptied into the lake.¹⁰ Moreover, the Ministry had
issued a notice of non-compliance to Garage Boulianne in June 2020
for having released a hazardous material (hydrocarbons) into the
environment and into a sewer system in breach of the Regulation
respecting hazardous materials.¹¹

In its contestation of the notices of claim, Transport CJZ thus
argued that Garage Boulianne was solely liable for the spill.

Analysis of Transport CJZ’s premises confirmed the presence
of weathered diesel fuel, with evidence of run-off into the
lake.¹² Soil samples taken near the garage revealed
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination, with a weathered diesel fuel
profile and traces of heavy hydrocarbons.¹³ Tests on
Garage Boulianne’s property revealed significant contamination,
consisting of a mixture of weathered diesel fuel and heavy
hydrocarbons, which appeared to have spread to the lake via the
storm sewer system.¹⁴ The evidence further showed that
there had indeed been a diesel leak in the Boulianne Garage’s
yard during the winter of 2020.¹⁵

Samples taken from Lac Bouchette exhibited properties consistent
with the contamination patterns from the two premises.¹⁶
The ATQ therefore undertook a thorough analysis of the expert
reports and inspection reports, reports which suffered from a
number of significant methodological weaknesses. Among other
things, the Minister’s expert failed to analyse certain
critical factors, such as the similarity between the contaminants
found in the soil at the Boulianne Garage and those taken from the
lake,¹⁷ and they did not perform a complete analysis of
the degradation profiles of the hydrocarbons found at the two
premises.¹⁸ In addition, the Minister’s
inspector’s initial checks of the storm ditch were found to be
inadequate.¹⁹

The Tribunal concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the
hydrocarbons that had reached the lake in May 2020 were released
from two separate sources, thus establishing that the spill from
Transport CJZ was not the only source of
contamination.²⁰ As the Minister had failed to bring any
evidence of Transport CJZ’s share of liability, the Tribunal
quashed all the notices of claim issued against Transport CJZ,
concluding that one of the contributing parties could not be held
liable for all the clean-up costs where several sources of
contamination had been identified.²¹

This decision establishes an important principle regarding the
recovery of environmental clean-up costs in Québec by the
Ministry under the Environment Quality Act, it is not
sufficient to simply identify a source of contamination; it is also
necessary to determine the share of each liable party’s
contribution to the contamination. Over and above its legal
importance, this decision also offers several practical insights
for companies confronted with environmental incidents:

• The importance of promptly documenting all environmental
  incidents, even minor ones;
• The benefits of carrying out one’s own analysis and
  sampling in the event of an incident; and
• The relevance of checking for other possible sources of
  contamination.

Footnotes

1. 2024 QCTAQ 04481.

2. Transport CJZ inc. Ministre de
l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements
climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, 2024 QCTAQ 04481, at
para. 13.

3. Ibid. at para. 23.

4. CQLR c. Q-2.

5. Transport CJZ c. Ministre
de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements
climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, supra note 1
at para. 46.

6. Ibid. at para. 4.

7. Ibid. at paras. 60 to 80.

8. Ibid. at paras. 34 to 37.

9. Ibid. at paras. 45 to 47.

10. Ibid. at para. 30.

11. CQLR c. Q-2, r. 32; Transport CJZ
inc. Ministre de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les
changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs,
supra note 1 at para. 32.

12. Ibid. at para. 66.

13. Ibid. at paras. 76 to
80.

14. Ibid. at paras. 108 to
117.

15. Ibid. at paras. 122 to
123.

16. Ibid. at paras. 76 and
167.

17. Ibid. at paras. 166 to
172.

18. Ibid. at paras. 181 to
182.

19. Ibid. at para. 188.

20. Ibid. at para. 191.

21. Ibid. at para. 192.

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not
constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any
decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal
advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2025