July 2011: The Overhaul That Shaped Ontario Environmental Site Assessment

Strengthened standards

The amendments replaced the site condition standards then in use with a strengthened set, updating criteria for numerous contaminants and adding standards for others. A property that met the old criteria did not necessarily meet the new ones, which is why assessments from that era cannot simply be relied on today.

A prescribed process, not just a professional opinion

The more lasting change was structural. Where an RSC is the objective, the regulation prescribes how the Phase 1 and Phase 2 must be conducted — the records to be reviewed, the interviews, the site reconnaissance, the sampling, and what the report must contain. It also sets out the role of the qualified person.

This is the origin of a distinction that still confuses clients: a Phase 1 conducted to the CSA standard and a Phase 1 conducted under O. Reg. 153/04 are not interchangeable. Both are legitimate, and they serve different purposes. A CSA-standard assessment supports due diligence, financing and general liability questions. Only a regulation-compliant assessment supports a Record of Site Condition.

Commissioning the wrong one is an expensive mistake, because the fix is usually to redo the work rather than amend the report. If a filing might be required — for rezoning, for a permit, or because a municipality may ask — say so before the work starts.

Report currency

The amendments also imposed timing limits, so assessments cannot sit on a shelf and be produced years later in support of a filing. On slow-moving developments this catches people out: work completed early in a project may need to be refreshed before it can be used.