CAUTION: We have been advised that fraudulent emails with a modified domain name have been sent by a source purporting to be from Aird & Berlis LLP. These communications are not legitimate and are not from Aird & Berlis LLP. Disregard any such emails and do not engage with the sender or the email in any way. Please report the attempted fraud by contacting the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre and by emailing Aird & Berlis LLP at

Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | Facilities | Ontario

May 30, 2019

Warrantless Inspections Under the EPA and Potential Implications For Energy Companies

By Dennis M. O'Leary and Christian Nianiaris

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision confirms that only a low threshold must be met for Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOE) provincial officers to conduct warrantless inspections of private property.

Section 156(1) of the (Ontario) Environmental Protection Act (EPA) allows a provincial officer to enter and inspect any place he or she “reasonably believes a contaminant is being, has been or may be discharged into the natural environment.” The Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) was recently faced with the dilemma of interpreting what “reasonably believes” means in the regulatory context. Even though Ontario (Environment and Climate Change) v. Geil did not deal with an energy project, the low standard set out by the ONCA sets a precedent that Ontario-based energy companies should be aware of.

In Geil, MOE provincial officers were informed by a third party that the accused was burning materials on his property. The provincial officers were unable to see fire or smoke until they entered the property, where the accused was burning debris from an old barn. The officers left the property after they were denied access to inspect the fire and told to leave. The ONCA’s task on appeal was to decide whether the provincial officers had a right to inspect the fire and enter the property – that is, whether they met the “reasonable belief” threshold given the evidence, or lack thereof, they had on hand.

The Provincial Offences Court justice of the peace noted that a reasonable belief standard with regard to the EPA is not the same as the standard used in the criminal context. The justice found that the officers acted on a “credible and reliable tip,” and the information they received from the third party was sufficient to meet the reasonable belief threshold. The accused was subsequently convicted.

The conviction was appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, which disagreed with the trial judge – the Appeal Court believed that relying solely on information from a third party to inform a provincial officer’s reasonable belief to enter private property is insufficient. However, on further appeal, the ONCA disagreed with the Appeal Court and reinstated the conviction set out by the justice of the peace. The ONCA disagreed with the trial judge’s stipulation that the information received by the provincial officer must be “compelling, credible and corroborated” as would be used in a criminal context, because these requirements are inconsistent with the purpose and functions of the EPA.

In coming to its conclusion, the ONCA expounds upon the purpose of the EPA and its remedial, protective and preventative functions. The court states that these functions inform the scope of the provincial officer’s authority to make inspections, conduct searches, take samples and to seize evidence. This authority cannot be exercised without a low reasonable belief threshold being met, which will occur when there is a nexus between the purpose of the provincial officer’s entry and the EPA’s purpose and functions, provided there is an objective and reasonable basis for the officer to believe that a contaminant was being, has been, or may be discharged into the natural environment. Importantly, the ONCA stated that a low standard is necessary because it provides the provincial officers with some level of flexibility and adaptability to the particular circumstances they are faced with, some of which may require prompt action.

The EPA includes limits to a provincial officer’s seemingly limitless authority to engage in warrantless inspections. Firstly, a provincial officer cannot enter a room used as a dwelling without the occupier’s consent unless they have judicial authority. Secondly, if the property owner prevents the provincial officer from inspecting the property, the provincial officer must leave and obtain a judicial order for entry or inspection.

This case may have relevance for energy companies. The EPA broadly defines a contaminant to include any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration or radiation that results directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect on the natural environment or the health of an individual. If the MOE suspects an energy company is producing a contaminant, it is possible that the MOE provincial officers may exercise the remedial, preventative, and protective functions of the EPA by engaging in warrantless inspections of the company property. The provincial officer will be able to proceed in this fashion if he or she has a reasonable belief that a contaminant is being discharged, based on his or her own assessment of the information at the time the inspection power is invoked.

Only time will tell whether and how provincial officers will enforce their warrantless inspection powers over corporations.

Areas of Expertise

Related Blogs

Posted in: Practice & Procedure | Facilities | Ratemaking | Ontario

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Varies Prior Decision Related to Sharing Property Sale Proceeds With Ratepayers By David Stevens Mar 01, 2018 On February 22, 2018, the Ontario Energy Board issued a Decision and Order reversing certain determinations made by a prior OEB panel about the sharing of proceeds from a property sale. This Review Motion Decision is the conclusion of a very lengthy motion to review and var...

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Ratemaking | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
OEB Issues Its Largest Rate Case Decision Ever By David Stevens Jan 18, 2018 On December 28, 2017, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its Decision with Reasons in the Ontario Power Generation “Payment Amounts” case, covering the 2017 to 2021 period. Among the notable determinations are an approval of the forecast costs of the Darlington Refurbishment Project and reduct...

Posted in: Ontario | Practice & Procedure | Facilities

Insights EnergyInsider
Ontario Court of Appeal Finds That Gas Utility’s Franchise Agreement Prevails Over Drainage Act By David Stevens Jan 16, 2018 In a decision released on January 10, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal found in favour of Union Gas on the question of whether the cost sharing provisions of a model franchise agreement apply to the relocation of a gas pipeline necessitated by drainage works. T...
Ontario Ministry of Energy Proposes Regulatory Changes to Start Implementing 2017 LTEP By David Stevens Nov 15, 2017 As we discussed in an earlier post, many of the new initiatives set out in Ontario’s 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan (2017 LTEP) will require changes to statutes and/or regulations. Late last month, the Ontario Ministry of Energy announced changes to a couple of regulations t...