The controversy surrounding the meaning to be ascribed to the language employed in [s. 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19] chiefly attaches to the words “emitting” and “radiation”. In this regard, [there is] no difficulty here accepting the [expert] evidence ... as to the shared understanding of both these terms in the scientific community. Contrary to suggestions made at some points by the defence, “radiation” cannot be reduced to “radioactivity”, nor is its meaning restricted to facets of the nuclear industry. Rather, like “add”, “deposit” and “leak” (or their equivalent nouns), it is a term of deliberately expansive compass that is intended to capture a broad range of natural phenomenon—including light reflecting from a window. Similarly, that reflective mechanism is simply a variant, like absorption and transmission, of the process by which light is “emitted”.
Podolsky v. Cadillac Fairview Corp. |
2013 CarswellOnt 1405 (Ont. C.J.) at para. 68 |