01-40_WC_149_JUL-AUG26_PT - Flipbook - Page 20
ENVIRONMENT
The PFAS Trap
Why slow public disclosure is now a multi-million-dollar liability
BY CORINNE LYNDS
O
N JUNE 30, 2026, Canada’s
new Prohibition of Certain Toxic
Substances Regulations officially kicked in.
While the federal government is focused
on banning the manufacture and import
of “forever chemicals” (PFAS), water utilities
and municipal managers are facing a completely
different problem: an aggressive new wave of legal
liability. Managing contamination is no longer
just a technical engineering puzzle. It is a highstakes legal minefield.
Water Canada sat down with Michael Hebert
(Counsel & Environmental Law Practice Leader)
and Nathan Adams (Associate, Environmental
Law Group) at Mann Lawyers LLP. Based in
Ottawa, they are the legal team behind the landmark Egan v. National Research Council of Canada
(NRC) PFAS contamination class action case,
which recently shook the sector by certifying
$2 million in additional punitive damages specifically for a multi-year delay in telling the public
about groundwater contamination.
They walked us through the limits of incoming
regulations, the rising threat of property “stigma”
lawsuits, and why the era of “hide and assess” is
officially over.
Corinne Lynds is the Chief Content
Officer with SiteMedia and former
Editor of Water Canada.
Michael Hebert
Nathan Adams
20
WATER C AN ADA • JULY/AUGUS T 2026
WATER CANADA: The Egan decision certified
punitive damages for delayed disclosure of PFAS
contamination. What message does this send
to municipalities and government bodies about
their duty to notify the public?
MICHAEL: The message is clear. If you have good
reason to believe that you have PFAS on your
site, and you have good reason to believe it could
be migrating off-site and potentially contaminating wells used for drinking water, you need
to notify the potential recipients immediately
so they can take action. You cannot let residents
continue to potentially consume contaminated
water without notifying them.
If you delay, the courts will entertain an application for punitive damages. It is vital to understand that punitive damages are entirely separate
from standard property diminution in value
claims due to contamination stigma. It’s a distinct
hammer the courts use to punish malicious and
oppressive conduct they deem unacceptable.
NATHAN: The wording in the court’s decision to
certify punitive damages for the delay in informing the Mississippi Mills community they could
potentially be drinking PFAS-contaminated
water was incredibly broad. In this case, the NRC
had environmental reports in its possession as
far back as 2004 expressing concerns about the
discharge of fire-fighting wastewater, and as far
back as 2009 showing the inferred groundwater
flow was in the direction of the residential community, and that since 1981 the NRC discharged
100 per cent of PFAS chemicals it used directly
into the natural environment and confirmed
PFAS contamination on site in March 2013. On
the basis of this evidence, the court accepted that
there was evidence that the NRC knew or ought
to have known that PFAS migrated offsite and
could have contaminated the residential community’s drinking water, about 2.5 years before the
community was warned in December 2025. At
WATERCANADA.NE T
