Canada: Much Ado About Nothing Or A Comedy Of Errors: The Post-Smith v. Inco Environmental Tort Landscape

Last Updated: November 3 2014
Article by Gatlin Smeijers

The 2011 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Smith v. Inco ("Inco") contains no fewer than 75, often lengthy, paragraphs of detailed legal analysis in respect of liability for environmental contamination. Approximately four of those paragraphs have caused, or at least created the impression they have caused, a dramatic redefinition of environmental law's most coveted torts: Strict liability and private nuisance.

While it's not clear to the author that such a significant shift in the law was intended by Ontario's Highest Court, it is apparent that judges, commentators, and lawyers across the country certainly interpret Inco as eviscerating the common law principles historically relied on by plaintiffs in most environmental lawsuits. As we approach the third anniversary of the decision, and in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's refusal to reconsider an appeal, it is a worthy time to take stock of the current environmental tort landscape.

You seem'd of late to make the law a tyrant

In short, Inco is a case about a permitted industrial activity that altered the chemical composition of neighbouring lands. Inco operated a nickel refinery in Port Colbourn, Ontario from 1918 through 1984, during which time the refinery emitted waste products into the air, including nickel oxide. The refinery operations, including the release of nickel oxide into the atmosphere, were permitted by a Certificate of Approval issued by the Province, at least during the time period where such approval was required by law. Soil sampling, conducted in 1998 and 1999, revealed that nickel levels in soil throughout many parts of Port Colborne far exceeded the Ministry of the Environment ("MOE") guideline of 200 parts per million. In September of 2000, the MOE decided to commence a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the residential area between the Inco property and the Welland Canal. Information regarding the extent of the nickel contamination, the potential health effects of nickel in soil, and information regarding safety precautions was subsequently distributed to the public.

With a certified class of approximately 7,000 individuals, Ellen Smith as the representative plaintiff, asserted a claim against Inco for diminution in property value on the basis of trespass, private nuisance and strict liability. Attempts to certify the action for personal injury where unsuccessful due to such claims requiring individualized causal inquiries.

At trial, the plaintiffs were successful is establishing Inco's liability in both strict liability and nuisance, garnering a substantial $36 million award of damages. The decision of Superior Court Justice Henderson, provided a liability analysis which, for most members of the environmental law bar, was completely uncontroversial. Specifically,

  • The fact that Inco brought a substance onto its lands (ie. nickel), made a special use of that land which engendered increased danger to others, and allowed that substance to escape, thereby causing injury, established Inco's liability under the strict liability doctrine described in the English case of Rylands v. Fletcher.
  • The accumulation of nickel on the plaintiffs' properties at such a level as to result in demonstrable diminution in value constitutes a substantial and material physical harm to the land attracting liability in private nuisance, notwithstanding any other impact.

While the analysis on other issues (eg. the limitation period and damages) in the trial and appeal decisions are worthy of their own articles, it is the Court of Appeal's reversal on the issue of liability that has attracted the attention of commentators. In concluding that neither strict liability nor private nuisance applied in the circumstances, the Court of Appeal made the following key findings:

  • The strict liability doctrine does not apply to discharges of contaminants into the natural environment that are the intended consequence of an activity that is approved and carried out in accordance with all rules and regulations. Strict liability, in the environmental context, is limited to "mishaps" that occur in the course of the conduct of an non-natural or unusual activity.
  • Strict liability does not apply unless the defendant has made a non-natural use of its land. The act of bringing a foreign substance onto the land does not alone constitute a non-natural use. In order to establish strict liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's use of the land was "not an ordinary or usual use" in light of "the degree of dangerousness posed by the activity and the circumstances surrounding the activity". While compliance with environmental and zoning laws is not determinative, it is "an important consideration" which in this case weighed favourably for Inco.
  • In order for liability in nuisance to arise as a result of environmental contamination, something more than a "mere chemical alteration in the content of soil" is necessary. To constitute physical harm, a change in chemical composition must have a detrimental effect on the land itself or the rights associated with the use of land. In the residential context, such detrimental effects include negative health effects, but property devaluation due to a perceived risk of negative health effects is not sufficient to establish liability in nuisance.

As a result of the Court of Appeal's reversal on liability, its lengthy review of the common law, and its final application to the facts of the case, much confusion has been created in the world of environmental tort law. Issues that were rarely fought over during the course of environmental litigation have now become battlegrounds where the viability of claims are questioned at their outset. In some cases, courts have prevented class actions from proceeding solely on the basis of the law as set-out in Inco.

Almost all claims in respect of contaminant migration from neighbouring lands are asserted through a combination of negligence, trespass, private nuisance, and strict liability. The widely held perception has been that the latter two torts have all but been eviscerated by Inco, except in certain rare circumstances. Given the substantial difficulty in asserting negligence in a historical contamination context, and given the requirement that a trespass must be both intentional and direct, the question remains whether plaintiffs have any common law basis to seek recovery for historical contaminant migration?

For pity is the virtue of the law, and none but tyrants use it cruelly

The most notable post-Inco decisions are those of Canada (Attorney General) v. MacQueen ("MacQueen") and Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway ("Windsor"). They are appellate court decisions in respect of class-action claims arising out of historical contaminant migration. In both cases, claims asserted through private nuisance and/or strict liability were not permitted to proceed, by way of summary dismissal or lack of certification.

In MacQueen, the plaintiffs alleged that the emissions of hazardous substances from the defendant's steel plants and coke ovens "caused damage to and constitut[ed] an interference with their property rights and integrity of their persons." The plaintiffs asserted multiple causes of action including battery, negligent battery, strict liability, nuisance, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Amongst other remedies, the plaintiffs sought recovery of diminution in property value. In citing Inco, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal concluded that:

  • The releases of contaminants from the defendant's operations were an "ordinary and natural by-product" of those operations. As such, the requirement that the defendant allowed the contaminants to "escape" could not be met, given that such releases were not entirely unintentional. Accordingly, the Court denied certification of the strict liability claim.
  • The claim in nuisance lacked sufficient common issues to certify. Specifically, because a liability in private nuisance only arises where there is more than a mere chemical alternation, as set-out in Inco, each class members claim would necessarily require an individualized inquiry.

Similarly, in Windsor, the Alberta Court of Appeal summarily dismissed, in part, a strict liability claim brought on behalf of residential property owners whose lands had allegedly been contaminated with the industrial solvent trichloroethylene ("TCE") as a result of CPR's historical use and disposal practices. The Court's dismissal was largely premised on a finding that the defendant's use of its land, and its associated discharge of TCE into the natural environment, failed to satisfy the "non-natural use" and "escape" requirements of the strict liability tort established in the 1868 English case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Additionally, the private nuisance claim asserted by the plaintiffs was pared down to include only those residential properties where it was necessary to install systems to mitigate the risks to human health created by the presence of the TCE. The rationale being, that without the need to mitigate, the contamination constituted only a mere chemical alteration.

The MacQueen and Windsor decisions illustrate two challenges courts are now faced with in determining liability for environmental contamination in the context of strict liability and private nuisance claims:

  1. How do we evaluate what constitutes a "non-natural use" and what constitutes an "escape"? Is the inquiry to focus merely on the nature of the activity, in a general sense? Or are we to focus on how that activity was conducted with specific reference to how the substances were handled, used, and contained? When we refer to a release being a natural consequence of an activity, does it matter whether or not it was an expected consequence?
  2. Where does contamination constitute more than a "mere chemical alteration"? How key is the risk to human health? What role do provincial standards, which are presumptively protective of human health, play? Do statutory restrictions on property use render certain levels of contamination physical harm?

In both MacQueen and Windsor, the appeal courts conducted a somewhat shallow analysis of "non-natural use", with little to no consideration of the specifics of how the use was carried out. To an extent, this may have been driven by the courts' not being directed toward such an inquiry. Likewise, the appeal courts' analysis on the issue of physical harm to property in the context of nuisance assumes that there is no generic threshold at which liability can be established. This is particularly the case in Windsor, where the court dismissed all nuisance claims where contamination levels did not specifically require mitigation.

In most cases to date, including those discussed above, these uncertainties in the law have resulted in plaintiffs being unsuccessful in asserting claims for contamination that may have legitimately and substantially reduced the value of their lands. Likewise, these threshold issues have become the subject of much argument, and debate, during the course of the litigation process.

The controversial reversal in the Inco case, as well as the perceived harsh outcome of both Windsor and MacQueen, are indicative of courts struggling to apply legal forms not well constructed for the particular factual circumstances. It should be remembered that both strict liability and private nuisance emerged from 19th century English common law and were part of a larger movement away from intentionality as the primary element necessary to establish liability for interference with real property (ie. expanding liability outside of the writ of trespass). During this time period of rapid industrialization, such legal forms were a natural means of ensuring property owners could realize on their right to exclude the impact of others and provide a mechanism for the internalization of negative economic externalities. These policy aims, in additional to others, are largely still relevant today.

What has significantly changed since the 19th century is our understanding of the impact industrial and commercial activities have on human health and the natural environment. In particular, our concern over such impacts has expanded beyond those very tangible intrusions (eg. noise, dust, smoke, fire) to include very intangible intrusions (eg. an increase in nickel oxide concentration in soil measured in parts per million). The ever evolving scientific understanding of how chemicals impact human health and the environment, even at miniscule concentrations, has been challenging to reconcile with discretionary thresholds (eg. unreasonable, substantial, etc) historically developed to address acute impacts on the use and enjoyment of property. This is further complicated by the fact that the existence of risk, particularly in a human health context, is defined with reference to what are essentially arbitrary thresholds (eg. a 1/million lifetime cancer risk – why not 1/100 thousand or 1/billion? ).

Likewise, the common place use of manufactured chemical substances, such as the gas station on every suburban corner or the strip-mall drycleaner, has rendered such activities to be perceived as normal, unexceptional and expected in most neighbourhoods. Our expanded use of chemical substances not typically found in the natural environment has frustrated the application of such concepts as the "non-natural use" of real property. The courts and common law will ultimately adapt, and it is the role of counsel to craft the arguments that will facilitate these changes.

Given that judges, courts, and the common law, in general, seek to reach a just result in the cases before them, the uncertainty created by the Inco decision has by necessity given plaintiffs' counsel two options:

  1. Learn to work within the seventy five paragraphs of common law analysis provided for in Inco to craft viable arguments in respect of strict liability and private nuisance; or
  2. Creatively seek to expand the reach of the other causes of actions, specifically, negligence and trespass.

How viable these approaches will be, and what changes to the common law they will precipitate, are just beginning to be seen.

Once more unto the breach

As a point of contrast to Windsor and MacQueen, the recent trial in Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. v. Huron Concrete Supply Ltd. ("Canadian Tire") engaged the issues and strategies discussed above. Canadian Tire was represented by Harry Dahme and Natalie Mullins of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. In Canadian Tire, the defendant owned and operated concrete forming business on lands adjacent to those of the plaintiff, where a retail store was located.The plaintiff discovered gasoline contamination, including a substantial quantity of separate phase gasoline, in the soil and groundwater on its property. The plaintiff alleged, with supporting expert evidence, that the contamination originated from underground storage tanks, which were part of a private fuel outlet, on the defendant's lands.

The plaintiff was successful in establishing liability in negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, and trespass and was awarded approximately $4 million in damages.

What is most interesting about the Canadian Tire case, is that the plaintiff did not seek to argue that the Ontario Court of Appeal got it wrong in Inco, but rather substantially relied on Inco in making the case that it was entitled to recovery under both strict liability and private nuisance. On the issue of non-natural use, the plaintiff argued that, while using the land for concrete forming, including the presence of underground storage tanks, was not a non-natural use per se, the failure of the defendant to comply with laws and regulations applicable to that use rendered it non-natural. This argument, expressly relied on the statement in Inco that:

"To decide whether a use is a non-natural one, the court must have regard to the place where the use is made, the time when the use is made and the manner of the use. Planning legislation and other government regulations controlling where, when and how activities can be carried out will be relevant considerations in assessing whether a particular use is a non-natural use in the sense that it is a use that is not ordinary."

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the evidence indicated that the defendant had failed to comply with the Code applicable to the use of underground fuel storage tanks, and thus, its use was in part illegal and could therefore not be considered natural or ordinary.

In respect to the threshold issue of physical harm versus mere chemical alteration in the context of private nuisance, the plaintiff argued that:

  • the contamination was present at concentrations exceeding health protective standards established by the province, necessitating further investigation and mitigation, and therefore was more than a mere chemical alteration;
  • the presence of the contamination above provincial standards triggered land use restrictions under provincial legislation and thus had "detrimental effect" on the "rights associated with the use of the land" as set-out in Inco; and
  • the contamination was in fact a risk to human health based on expert evidence.

It was therefore on the basis of the law set-out in Inco that the plaintiff asserted its argument for liability under strict liability and nuisance.

While the success in negligence is not particularly notable given the defendant's aforementioned failure to comply with the Code applicable to underground storage tanks, what is notable is the plaintiff's success in trespass. The latter has consistently been viewed as inapplicable to contaminant migration cases due to the lack of both intentionality and directness. In this case however, the plaintiff did not argue that the initial migration constituted a trespass. Rather, the argument was made that the free phase gasoline present on the plaintiff's property continued to be the personal property of the defendant. Under the doctrine of continuing trespass, objects left to remain on the real property of another person, notwithstanding how they initially got there, constitute a trespass once a request has been made to remove the objects, and the defendant fails to do so within a reasonable time.

In this case, the evidence was that the plaintiff had in fact requested that the defendant remove the gasoline and that the defendant failed to do so. As such, it was the failure to remove the gasoline within a reasonable time which established liability in trespass, not the indirect migration. Whether such an argument can be successful where there is no separate phase contamination present remains to be seen.

What the Canadian Tire case demonstrates is that working inside of the law provided by Inco can yield viable claims for plaintiffs in contaminant migration cases. It also shows that previously neglected causes of action can be an alternative means assisting courts in reaching a just result.

In Closing

The Canadian Tire decision illustrates how strict liability and nuisance can be viable mechanisms for the recovery of damages arising from the migration of contaminants released in less than unusual circumstances (ie. an underground fuel storage tank at an industrial operation). It also illustrates how often ignored torts (eg. trespass) may be given new life in the environmental context through innovative arguments. As is mentioned above, courts will seek to award plaintiffs where the facts demonstrate that someone has been legitimately and unjustly injured. The Inco decision has certainly made it more challenging for plaintiffs to provide courts the legal rationale for making such awards. It has thus shifted the burden to plaintiffs' counsel to find innovative arguments within the framework of Inco, and to look elsewhere within the common law, to find the necessary legal basis for recovery.

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.

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
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 you may opt out by clicking here

    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.

    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.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    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.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions