519 672 2121
Close mobile menu

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-toxic airborne dust be the subject of a successful class action, when nickel refinery dust (a carcinogen) wasn’t? For a quick round up of the possibilities, such as nuisance, negligence, trespass, and Rylands v. Fletcher, and an excellent list of relevant cases, here is our Environmental Causes of Action presentation to the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 6 Minute Lawyer seminar. My video podcast on the case (which offers some of these answers) will be available next week.

Many thanks to Meredith James for her hard work in putting this together.

News & Views


The more you understand, the easier it is to manage well.

View Blog

What you need to know before you sign a liability waiver

Winter sports season is around the corner. Usually, participants must sign a liability waive…

Car insurance 101: 7 optional accident benefits you should consider

When you renew your car insurance policy, you have a variety of options to increase your cov…