We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
On April 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC")
refused leave to appeal from the reversal of a $36 million
environmental class action award against Inco. As usual, the SCC
did not give reasons for declining to hear the appeal. The refusal
of the leave application means
the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA")
will stand (
See November 2011 Focus on Environmental Law). The parties now
face a determination of the trial costs awarded to Inco (costs of
the appeal have been fixed at $100,000).
Summary
In a 3‐0 decision, the ONCA reversed a $36 million
trial award to members of an environmental class action. Thousands
of Port Colborne, Ontario's residents had sued Inco for
property devaluation caused by soil contamination arising from 66
years of nickel refining emissions from Inco's smelter.
Smith v. Inco Ltd. (formerly Pearson v. Inco
Ltd.) is notable as one of the first environmental class
actions to go to a full trial on the common issues.
Implications
The ONCA decision makes it much more difficult to pursue claims
of trespass, private nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher
strict liability in cases of historic contamination and also
clarifies the application of limitation periods for class actions.
Since the ONCA could have easily dismissed the claim based on the
lack of damages or problems with a common limitation period alone,
it is unclear if the ONCA's sweeping limitation of private
nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability claims
will be followed by future courts.
Since the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision is binding only
in Ontario, there are arguably different standards set by courts in
other jurisdictions in Canada for establishing the torts of private
nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability in an
environmental context. Appellate court decisions are often
persuasive in other provinces, with any perceived incongruity
ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada. While the SCC
did not choose to hear Smith v. Inco Ltd., we have likely
not heard to the last word on this issue.
About Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC)
FMC is one of Canada's leading business and litigation law
firms with more than 500 lawyers in six full-service offices
located in the country's key business centres. We focus on
providing outstanding service and value to our clients, and we
strive to excel as a workplace of choice for our people. Regardless
of where you choose to do business in Canada, our strong team of
professionals possess knowledge and expertise on regional, national
and cross-border matters. FMC's well-earned reputation for
consistently delivering the highest quality legal services and
counsel to our clients is complemented by an ongoing commitment to
diversity and inclusion to broaden our insight and perspective on
our clients' needs. Visit:
www.fmc-law.com
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.
A large, historical Australian public health study from the Sydney Medical School concludes that health complaints about wind turbines are heavily influenced by contagious nocebo effects.
The City of Kawartha Lakes has appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal from a Ministry of the Environment Order, which imposed cleanup liability on the City for contamination it did not cause.
The $18 billion award given in Ecuador against Chevron for environmental damage won’t be enforced by seizing Chevron Canada, according to Justice David Brown.
On April 12, 2013, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) issued a public notice regarding proposed amendments to the Regulations Designating Physical Activities (Project List).
We have written several times about the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in AbitibiBowater v. Newfoundland, in which insolvency law trumped environmental orders.
