Why didn't the limitation period protect Inco from the Port Colborne class action,Smith v. Inco (formerly Pearson v. Inco)?
According to Justice Henderson, because of the discoverability
principle. Everyone knew about the nickel refinery, and could
easily have known that there was nickel in the soil in town. But
most didn't know it would affect the value of their properties.
In fact, the nickel may not have affected property values.
But then there was a chain reaction, none of which was caused by
Inco. The MOE did a study of the effect of nickel
on plants. In Sept 2000, they published it. To protect themselves,
real estate agents started to disclose nickel in local real estate
transactions. And, according to Justice Henderson, that started the
limitation period for loss in property value from running all over
If that's all it takes, the same panicked chain reaction
could happen in many other places. There is TCE in Barrie and
Cambridge, PAHs and many other things in Toronto and nickel in
Sudbury. Petroleum hydrocarbons have been spilled almost
everywhere. Land near busy roads received lead and salt.
Agricultural land may have pesticides. No one can count any longer
on the limitation period having run for any of it.
Berkhout testified that until the 1998 MOE phytotoxicological
study was publicly released on January 26, 2000, the real estate
agents in the area did not refer to nickel soil contamination in
any of the documentation used for the purchase and sale of
properties in the area. When the MOE study was released in January
2000 Berkhout said that it was the first time that the industry
could see on paper what they were dealing with.
 After a meeting of real estate board members on February
15, 2000, most of the real estate agents operating in Port Colborne
started to insert clauses with respect to nickel soil contamination
into the agreements of purchase and sale. In his memo to the real
estate agents dated February 15, 2000, Berkhout wrote that
"Financing and/or closings may be affected".
 Therefore, I conclude that the real estate agents as a
whole did not perceive that nickel in the soil could affect the
residential real estate market prior to the release of the 1998 MOE
phytotoxicological study. For the purposes of the discoverability
issue I accept that the real estate agents in the area became aware
of the potential effect on property values when the study was
publicly released on January 26, 2000. Further, I accept that they
would not have been aware of the potential effect on property
values through reasonable diligence prior to that date.
 In my view, if real estate agents were not aware until
January 2000 of the potential effect of nickel soil contamination
on property values, it is extremely unlikely that most members of
the public knew or ought to have known of the effect of nickel soil
contamination on property values until at least that time. Most
members of the public would not be aware of the effect on property
values until information was disseminated through the real estate
agents after February 15, 2000.
 Next, this court must consider how to apply the
discoverability principle set out in Peixeiro to a class action.
Does the limitation period start to run when all of the class
members knew or ought to have known all of the material facts? Or,
when only one of the class members knew or ought to have known? Or,
when a majority of class members knew or ought to have known? There
is no case law on point.
 In the present case, there were probably 10 or 12 property
owners, out of approximately 7,000 property owners in the class,
who had their own properties tested for nickel prior to the 1998
phytotoxicological study, and who therefore had some special
knowledge of the general extent of nickel contamination of the soil
in Port Colborne. However, I cannot assume that any of those
property owners knew or ought to have known that their property
values could be affected.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Ontario's Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change continues to roll out its Climate Change Action Plan with its proposed GHG guide for projects that are subject to the province's Environmental Assessment Act.
The Imperial Oil refinery pled guilty to one offence for discharging a contaminant, coker stabilizer, thermocracked gas, into the natural environment causing an adverse effect and was fined $650,000...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).