Canada: Court Overturns C$36-Million Damages Award in Environmental Class Action

Copyright 2011, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Environmental/Class Actions, October 2011


In a unanimous judgment, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned a decision which had awarded members of an environmental class action C$36-million against Inco Limited (now Vale) for contamination arising from authorized historic industrial activity.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Smith v. Inco Limited, released on Friday, October 7, 2011, clarifies the legal requirements for claims of nuisance and strict liability, and the appropriate method of analysis for a limitation period for a class of plaintiffs.

This judgment is particularly noteworthy given that Smith v. Inco Limited was one of the first class actions in Canada to go to a full common-issues trial.


Inco Limited had operated a nickel refinery in Port Colborne, Ontario, a town of approximately 18,000 residents on the north shore of Lake Erie, from 1918 until 1984. The class action against Inco Limited was launched in March 2001 following the release of an Ontario Ministry of the Environment phytotoxicological study which disclosed that nickel contamination existed in the soil in certain parts of Port Colborne, Ontario. The claimants alleged that the public disclosure of the nickel-soil contamination in 2000 precipitated public concern of the potential health effects of the nickel deposits, and that this negatively affected the value of their property. They further alleged that, as Inco was the source of the nickel contamination, it was liable for the diminution in value of their property.

On July 6, 2010, after a four-month trial, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found Inco Limited liable for the class members' decreased property values on the basis of the torts of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher and private nuisance. The court also concluded that the claims against Inco Limited were not statute barred by the Limitations Act, finding that the cause of action against Inco Limited arose in February 15, 2000, after a meeting of real estate board members in the Port Colborne area determined that it was appropriate to put a warning concerning nickel contamination in all contracts to purchase homes in the area. The lower court rejected Inco Limited's arguments that a cause of action – if any – arose in 1984 when the refinery was closed, and awarded C$36-million in damages to the claimants, based on hotly contested expert evidence.

The lower court's decision, particularly the award of such significant damages stemming from operations that had ceased almost a quarter of a century before trial, prompted considerable discussion among those in both the environmental community and the class-action bar. For an in-depth explanation of the Ontario Superior Court's trial level decision and the facts of the case, please see our July 2010 Blakes Bulletin on the subject.

Ontario Court of Appeal's decision

The Court of Appeal allowed Inco Limited's appeal and dismissed the action. It was found that the claimants had not in fact established Inco Limited's liability under either private nuisance or strict liability, and that, moreover, even if such claims had been established, the claimants had failed to establish any loss or damage. Though not necessary to dispose of the appeal, the Court of Appeal also offered its analysis of the applicable limitation period, with the express recognition that such an important issue has potential application to other class action claims in which limitation period defences are raised.

Private Nuisance

The Court of Appeal determined that the private nuisance claim should not have succeeded at trial. The trial judge had accepted that the deposit of nickel particles, which have become part of the soil, amounted to physical damage to the claimants' properties, and that such physical damage was "material" (a requisite element of a private nuisance claim) as it had negatively affected the values of the claimants' properties.

The Court of Appeal clarified that private nuisance requires actual, substantial, physical damage to the land be established, which meant – in the context of the case at hand – that the nickel levels must be found to pose at least some risk to the health or wellbeing of the residents of the properties. The damage need not be visible to the naked eye, but the physical damage alleged must be more than "a mere chemical alteration to the content of the soil, without more". The Court of Appeal found that the claimants had not shown that there had been any physical damage that had some detrimental effect on the land or the rights associated with use of the land: evidence that the existence of nickel particles in the soil generated "concerns" about "potential" health risks simply did not suffice. The Court of Appeal was clear that the tort of private nuisance was not one that could be based on mere concerns, but rather one that should be based on actual, material injury.

Strict Liability Under the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

The Court of Appeal also held that the claim for damages for strict liability should not have succeeded at trial. Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, strict liability is imposed for damage caused by the escape from one party's property to another's of a substance likely to cause mischief.

Typically, in a case based on Rylands v. Fletcher:

  • the defendant must be shown to have made a non-natural use of this land
  • the defendant must have brought something onto the land that was likely to do mischief in the event of an escape
  • the substance at issue must have actually escaped
  • damage must have been caused to the plaintiff's property.

As summarized by the Court of Appeal, the trial judge's imposition of liability on Inco Limited under strict liability was based on the rationale that "an entity who chooses to engage in potentially hazardous activity assumes the risk of any damages caused by that activity."

The Court of Appeal flatly rejected the notion that strict liability can be based solely on the "extra hazardous" nature of a defendant's conduct. Such a theory of liability would impose strict liability for damages that are the result of intended consequences of an activity, whereas the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher imposes strict liability for the unintended consequences of a mishap. Under the current law, strict liability is not imposed simply because an activity carried out was abnormally hazardous. In any event, the Court of Appeal also found that there was no evidence to suggest that Inco Limited's refinery operations or emissions should be considered extra hazardous.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal held that the claimants did not meet their burden of establishing that the refinery operation was a non-natural use of Inco Limited's property, the essential first element of a Rylands v. Fletcher test. It is worth noting that when evaluating whether the operation of the refinery was a "non natural use" of the land, the Court of Appeal stated that while compliance with environmental and zoning regulations was not a defence to a claim under Rylands v. Fletcher, such compliance is a consideration in determining whether a use is non-natural in the sense that it is not ordinary.


Although not necessary to the resolution of the appeal, the Court of Appeal went on to consider the damages awarded as it was concerned with the methodology used by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal noted that even if Inco Limited's liability under either private nuisance or strict liability had been established, the claimants failed to prove damages, and the trial judge had made errors in principle when analyzing the claimants' claim for damages. The claimants alleged that their properties had not appreciated as other comparable properties had, with reference to data sets comparing property values in Port Colborne and Welland, Ontario. The Court of Appeal held that the claimants had in fact suffered no demonstrable loss. The various problems with the trial judge's determination that the claimants had suffered damages included that:

  • the data sets had not been properly corrected for logical and consistent statistical comparison
  • the claimants' experts had made no effort to determine what other factors may have affected the property values in Port Colborne
  • the trial judge had conducted arbitrary calculations, without evidentiary foundation.

The Limitations Issue

Finally, although again not necessary to dispose of the appeal, the Court of Appeal made the effort to comment on – and correct - the trial judge's Limitations Act analysis. In considering when the limitations period should begin to run with respect to the claim against Inco Limited, the trial judge had noted that "most" property owners would not have been aware of the potential effects of the nickel soil deposits until 2000, and therefore the limitations period did not begin to run until February 15, 2000 (following the meeting of real estate board members) for the entire class of claimants. The Court of Appeal took issue with this finding, as some members of the class, as admitted by the trial judge, would have been aware of the potential effect of the nickel deposits. Unless all class members had been unaware of the material facts of a potential claim until such a date, the application of the Limitations Act was not a common issue as between the class members. Consequently, the trial judge erred in holding that the limitations period begins to run when the majority of a class knew or ought to have known the material facts.


The Court of Appeal's decision makes significant clarifications to the law of private nuisance and strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher, two torts often found in environmental litigation. With respect to strict liability, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there are policy rationales for the imposition of strict liability for activities which create "extra hazardous" risks, but ultimately declined to impose such liability by way of "judicial fiat", in the absence of legislative prompting.

The clarifications offered by the Court of Appeal concerning damages and limitations period are also instructive. First, this case offers a reminder that the Court of Appeal will not hesitate to interfere with a trial judge's evidentiary findings when they are based on flawed statistical analysis and arbitrary calculations. Second, limitations periods in class actions will defeat a claim unless all class action claimants did not know or ought not to have known the material facts of the claim. The Court of Appeal has now provided clear direction that the limitations issue will not necessarily be considered a common issue.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
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).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.