Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Judge dismisses BCR Properties bid to throw out Brink lawsuit

A B.C. Supreme Court Justice has rejected an application from BCR Properties Ltd. to dismiss a lawsuit against the Crown corporation brought on by Prince George lumber manufacturer John Brink.
Brink-v-BCR-update.03.jpg

A B.C. Supreme Court Justice has rejected an application from BCR Properties Ltd. to dismiss a lawsuit against the Crown corporation brought on by Prince George lumber manufacturer John Brink.

The outcome, issued Monday by Justice John Steeves following a hearing in early December, means the matter, a dispute over the condition of land at the BCR industrial site where Brink had intended to build a sawmill, can be taken to trial.

Brink is alleging BCR acted fraudulently by trying to hide the true state of the land on which he had intended to build a new sawmill complex, a 100-acre site at 1077 Boundary Road where the old Netherlands sawmill once sat.

Construction began immediately after an offer to lease was signed in April 2005. Within six months, the new mill's foundation and superstructure were in place and a number of machines had been installed with the intent to start processing logs by the winter of 2005-06.

The mill would have employed 150 people if built, Brink has said.

But in fall 2007, Brink became aware that the site included a 22-acre landfill, which contained log yard and sawmill residue, heavy and light petroleum compounds, heavy metals, clinker, copper, mercury and zinc, tires "and many other deleterious substances," for a depth of five to 10 metres.

According to a court filing from Brink, the discovery occurred while repairing damage to the property caused by road construction by the City of Prince George and straddles a corner of the property that makes about 40 acres of the site unusable.

The estimated cost of remediating the property is at least $10 million. Brink is also seeking 15 years of foregone profits from BCR.

Relying largely on three previous court decisions on the matter that found in the Crown corporation's favour, BCR applied to have the latest action, initiated in February 2012, dismissed. In part, Steeves found that while the latest action was over the same property it is about a different subject matter and dismissed BCR's application.