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

Blog

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

View Blog

Is Bill 124 unconstitutional? Yes. And also, no.

On, February 12, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court”) released its much-anticipat…

Paths to resolving a family law separation

Experiencing a separation is never easy. When a relationship breaks down, there are many iss…