Environmental causes of action
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Inco is requiring Canadian environmental lawyers to carefully rethink environmental causes of action–who can sue who for what? How can Smith v. Inco be reconciled with St. Lawrence Cement v. Barrette? (Different type of nuisance). Why can non-to…Continue reading the post titled Environmental causes of action
Another noise lawsuit
A group of Calgary residents have launched another civil lawsuit, trying to force a local chicken processing plant (Lilydale) to slash noise and odour. The statement of claim asks the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench to order Lilydale to stop night-time trucking at its Hurst Road plant, limit …Continue reading the post titled Another noise lawsuit
Port Colborne class action dismissed
Can neighbours sue for historic contamination? The leading Canadian case has been Pearson (later Smith) v. Inco, a class action by thousands of Port Colborne property owners against Inco, for alleged losses in property value due to nickel oxide that was legally deposited in the area during t…Continue reading the post titled Port Colborne class action dismissed
Pollution from distant source a nuisance?
The legal category of nuisance may be easier to use for long distance air pollution after a recent comment by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2011 ONCA 419 (CanLII), Justice Epstein ruled that nuisance claims can be successfully made, no …Continue reading the post titled Pollution from distant source a nuisance?
Two British Columbia cases show again why we need laws to prevent Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs).Continue reading the post titled Unsuccessful SLAPPs
Polluter must pay for cleanup, twice
It’s not safe for a polluter to trust a subsequent owner to clean up contamination, even if the polluter has specifically paid for the cleanup, and even if the new owner signs a contract relieving the original polluter of liability. None of this will prevent environmental regulators from ord…Continue reading the post titled Polluter must pay for cleanup, twice
Lawsuit for noise and odour
Noise and odour are frequent sources of neighbourhood disputes. Sometimes those disputes can be resolved by turning to regulators, such as the Ministry of the Environment or municipal bylaw enforcement officers. Often, however, that isn’t enough. Some then turn to the courts.Continue reading the post titled Lawsuit for noise and odour
Grassy Narrows victory and renewable energy
The Grassy Narrows First Nation has won an important legal victory, affecting Ontario lands north of the English River, the “Keewatin Lands”. After 11 years of litigation, they have succeeded in obtaining a ruling that the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) had no right to issue fores…Continue reading the post titled Grassy Narrows victory and renewable energy
What was she thinking?
In R. v. Matchim, a recent case before the Ontario Court of Justice (March 18 2011), firefighters extinguished a blaze in the basement of a home on Vincent Street, in Newmarket. An explosion then occurred in the main sanitary sewer line on the street.Continue reading the post titled What was she thinking?
MacQueen v. Canada class action
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court has certified a massive class action by Sydney residents against the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia, relating to contamination from the notorious Sydney tar ponds, and the associated steel mill and coke ovens from the old Sydney Steel.Continue reading the post titled MacQueen v. Canada class action