In the case of Cordy Environmental Inc. v Obsidian Energy Ltd. dated July 13, 2023, the plaintiff, Cordy Environmental Inc., sought summary judgment against the defendant, Obsidian Energy Ltd., for the recovery of costs incurred during the remediation of a pipeline spill in British Columbia. Obsidian was a former owner of the pipeline. Cordy claimed that Obsidian was responsible for the remediation costs under the Environmental Management Act (EMA). However, Obsidian argued that the costs were actually incurred by another entity and that Cordy was an unsecured creditor with a provable claim in bankruptcy. The court determined that Cordy fell within the definition of a "person" under the EMA and could bring a claim for remediation costs against responsible parties. Although Cordy was not a responsible person for the contamination, it was hired by the responsible entity and incurred costs for the remediation work. Obsidian raised other defenses based on the EMA, which needed to be determined at trial. The court concluded that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the reasonableness of Cordy's costs and whether Obsidian had any legal or equitable defenses under the EMA and related regulations. The case was referred to the trial list to address these issues. In summary, the court denied both parties' requests for summary judgment and referred the case to trial to determine whether Cordy's costs were reasonably incurred and whether Obsidian had any defenses to Cordy's claim.