MARCH 24, 2004
On March 24, 2004, a proposed common law class proceeding in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against Ispat Sidbec Inc., Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc., Sydney Steel Corporation, The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, Canadian National Railway Company, The Attorney General of Canada and Domtar Inc. was brought on behalf of family members, residents and former residents relating to injuries to people's health and contamination in the residential neighbourhoods immediately surrounding the Sydney Tar Ponds, Coke Ovens and Steel Plant sites.
JUNE 30, 2006
On June 30, 2006, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision with respect the appeal of Ispat Sidbec Inc., The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and The Attorney General of Canada, respecting applications to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.
In September 2008, the Nova Scotia Superior Court approved the discontinuance of this action against Ispat Sidbec Inc., (which ceased to have any involvement in operating the Steel Works in 1967) while continuing the action against all the remaining Defendants for all the relief claimed.
JUNE 18, 2010
On Monday, June 21, 2010, the motion for certification of a class action with respect to the lawsuit filed against the Province of Nova Scotia and Canada in relation to the Sydney Tar Ponds, Coke Ovens and Steel Plant was heard in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Halifax. The proceedings were be broadcast live on the Internet, and archived for later viewing.
DECEMBER 9, 2010
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010, the continuation of the motion for certification was heard in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Halifax.
JUNE 23, 2011
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, the Honourable Justice John D. Murphy gave his oral decision certifying the class action.
DECEMBER 4, 2013
On December 4, 2013, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the defendants’ appeal and set aside the certification order in this action. The written decision can be found here.
JANUARY 15, 2015
On January 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s certification decision. As is customary, the Supreme Court did not provide reasons for its decision.
Counsel is currently considering new strategies toward seeking justice for the affected individuals.