TORONTO, (June 23, 2005) — A proposed rule that makes workplace chemical spills an absolute liability offence is one step closer to becoming law.

The bill — nicknamed the “you spill, you pay” bill — has just cleared third reading in the Ontario legislature. If passed, it would give the Ministry of Environment new powers to seek cleanup recovery costs from companies responsible for spills.

Contrary to some earlier reports, the new regulations do not apply to the general for-hire trucking industry or to individual roadside tanker spills. The Ontario Trucking Association was seeking clarification of the bill a few months ago, concerned that it would be extended to all facilities that handle chemicals. That is not the case, confirms Arthur Chamberlain, spokesperson for the MOE. And he told TodaysTrucking.com there are no plans to make carrier-specific companies liable in the future.

Bill 133 will change the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) by adding new administrative penalty provisions and strengthening the sentencing provisions for statutory and regulatory contraventions. Environmental officers will have the authority to impose a penalty of up to $100,000 a day to companies responsible for unlawful spills and emissions at their facilities.

Those affected are Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA)-regulated companies whose operations include electric power plants, chemical plants, metal mining, steel production, petroleum, and pulp and paper mills.

Like Ontario’s wheel-off law for truckers, the bill takes away a company’s defence of due diligence in the event of a spill. Penalties must be paid whether a pollution incident was deliberate or an unfortunate incident. “Allowing due diligence to be considered a factor for a reduction rather than a defense, will help ensure that time and effort is focused on bringing about compliance, mitigating negative impacts, and ensuring that the spill does not happen again,” the rule states.

Since the Environmental Penalties are administrative, the onus of proof during appeal will be on the company to show that the spill did not have the potential to harm the environment. “Imposing reverse onus on appeals of environmental penalties related to spills is justified because if the appellant is responsible for using contaminants at its facility, they are also in the best position to demonstrate that their discharge did not violate applicable legal requirements,” the legislation states.