Law360 Canada ( October 27, 2022, 9:53 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the plaintiff Intact Insurance Company (Intact) from the summary dismissal of its action. Intact insured a transportation company against liability for damage to the property of others. While Transport Donia Banville (TDB) was transporting a shipment of liquid formaldehyde, TDB’s vehicle overturned near a residential neighbourhood in North Bay, Ontario. The formaldehyde was released onto residential lands and into the municipal drinking water supply. It was not in dispute that TDB was a person who had control of the formaldehyde at the time of the spill. Nor was it in dispute that formaldehyde was a pollutant within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA). Under section 93 of the EPA, the person who had control of the pollutant and the owner of the pollutant at the time of the environmental spill were each responsible to eliminate or ameliorate the adverse effects of the spill and restore the environment. Shortly after the spill occurred, Intact, as TDB’s insurer, arranged and began to make payments toward remediation efforts. Although Intact’s policy limit was $5 million, it claimed that its payments for remediation were more than $7.9 million. Intact did not seek to recover the excess payments from its own insured, but rather from the respondents. The respondents were the company whose liquid formaldehyde was being shipped, the company to whom it was being shipped, and the company that had arranged the shipment, all of whom also had a duty to remediate under section 93 of the EPA. Intact brought an action against the respondents for the excess payments, asserting a cause of action under section 99(2)(a) of the EPA. Intact also claimed under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Intact moved for summary judgment on its claim. The motion judge dismissed Intact’s motion and its action. Intact took the position that the motion judge erred in law about liability under the EPA and about the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment....