Canada: Class Action for Long-Term Environmental Harm Certified by Ontario Appeal Court Despite Substantial Individual Assessment Issues

Pearson v. Inco Limited: Balance Appears to have Shifted Toward Plaintiffs with Decision on Alleged Port Colborne Nickel Pollution

On November 18, 2005, the Court of Appeal for Ontario certified a class action against Inco Ltd. in relation to alleged environmental damages caused by long-term emissions from a nickel refinery in the Port Colborne area. It is a watershed decision in that it is the first class action ever to be certified for long-term historic environmental harm in any province other than Quebec (up until now, Canadian common law courts had only been willing to certify environmental class actions arising from a one-time pollution event).

This decision underscores an evolving trend towards a more liberalized approach to certifying environmental class actions. The Court of Appeal was moved to overturn the lower court rulings of the motion judge and the Divisional Court not only because the plaintiff had significantly narrowed his claim to damages for the devaluation of real property occasioned after the Ministry of the Environment confirmed the presence of high levels of contaminants, but also because of the shift in the legal landscape precipitated by the Court’s recent decision in Cloud v. A.G. Canada (2004), 247 D.L.R. (4th) 66.


The case arose from the emission of nickel pollutants from Inco’s Port Colborne refinery from 1918 to 1984. Although emissions had long ceased, in 2000 it was disclosed that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment had found higher than expected levels of contaminants in the area around the refinery.

The plaintiff attempted to bring a class action proceeding against Inco, initially framing his claim very broadly to span the whole spectrum of potential losses including health effects and reduced property value. The motion judge and the Divisional Court both denied certification for several reasons, basing their findings primarily on the concern that the wide range of personal injuries and damages that would have resulted from the historic nickel emissions negated the advantage of a class action over multiple individual actions. In denying certification, the lower courts were mindful of the decision in Hollick v. Toronto (City) (2001), 205 D.L.R. (4th) 19, in which the Supreme Court of Canada had blocked an attempt to certify a class action over a dump primarily because the common issues were deemed negligible in comparison to the individual issues, and because a fund had been established to recompense the potential class members.

In the Inco case, the plaintiff Wilfred Pearson appealed the denial of certification to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and in doing so, recast the scope of the class action to claim that the disclosure of the MOE findings had led to an immediate plunge in house values in the area generally, and most noticeably in the Rodney Street area, which was in close proximity to the refinery. Limiting the claim in this manner weighed in his favour, as did the recent Cloud decision, where certification was allowed notwithstanding that many individual issues needed to be resolved in respect of claims involving systematic abuse of students who had attended a government-run residential school.

Certification as a Class Action

For an action to be certified as a class action in Ontario, the plaintiff must be able to demonstrate that: (i) there is a sustainable cause of action, (ii) the cause of action is shared by an identifiable class of claimants, (iii) there are common issues of fact or law to be resolved, (iv) the class action is the preferable procedure for resolution of the common issues, and (v) the proposed representative plaintiff can adequately represent the interests of the class.

In approving certification in Pearson v. Inco, Rosenberg J.A. (writing for the Court of Appeal) canvassed each of these tests in detail, giving guidance on what appears to be an emerging judicial trend to act more liberally in certifying class proceedings, particularly in relation to environmental class proceedings:

1. Proceedings must disclose a cause of action. Inco claimed firstly that the appellant had raised the argument for damages for property devaluation for the first time in the appeal, and secondly, in formulating the causes of action, the appellant had attempted to artificially inflate the number and complexity of the common issues so that the action would appear "ripe" for certification as a class proceeding. While concurring that it would not be appropriate for a plaintiff to broaden the grounds of liability to make a simple case appear complex in an attempt to make it more amenable to class proceedings, the Court of Appeal was clear in finding that certification would only be denied on this basis if the common issues advanced were "relatively unimportant". This was not held to be the case here: devaluation of property was deemed sufficiently serious to be pleaded, and in fact had been raised previously, albeit only as a small aspect of the appellant’s original claim.

2. There must be an identifiable class. The original proposed class, which had been defined using geographical and temporal boundaries, had been deemed by the motion judge to be arbitrary as it was overinclusive in some respects (it potentially included claimants who may not have been affected by the nickel contamination), and underinclusive in others (primarily because there was evidence of comparable amounts of contamination outside the defined area, and because the specified time period excluded those who may have suffered harm but who had left the area prior to the benchmark date).

The Court of Appeal, however, determined that this rationale no longer applied since, by limiting the cause of action to a reduction in property value arising at a particular point in time, the frame of reference had been shifted away from the question of actual levels of pollution to the effect the MOE disclosure had on property values within a specified area.

Applying the tests set out in Hollick, the appellant was found to have met the identifiable class requirement: the class had been defined by objective criteria (i.e., persons were admitted to the class if they owned property within the specified area within the specified time frame), and, in leading evidence that property values had declined following the MOE disclosure, the appellant had shown that there was a link between the class and the common issues to be tried and that therefore the proposed class was not "unnecessarily broad". In particular, the Court of Appeal was extremely cautious about using underinclusiveness as an argument against certification, particularly in the environmental context, where, by its very nature, the effects of pollution were often "widespread and diffuse". In particular, it seemed illogical to the court that Inco could resist certification by showing that the extent of damage it had caused was greater than that claimed by the appellant.

3. The claims or defences of the class members must raise common issues. As mentioned above, Inco had argued that many of the common issues raised were inconsequential and not of sufficient weight to meet this requirement. But the appeal court disagreed, citing Cloud in noting that the common issue requirement is the "low bar" to certification, and that this requirement could still be met "even if it makes up a very limited aspect of the liability question and even though many individual issues remain to be decided after its resolution".

4. A class proceeding must be the preferable procedure for resolution of the common issues. This question was considered with particular reference to the three accepted goals of a class proceeding: (a) judicial economy, (b) access to justice, and (c) behavioural modification.

(a) Judicial economy: The motion judge had held that a class proceeding would not advance the goal of judicial economy in this case because, notwithstanding determination of the common issues, it would still be necessary to embark on an individualized analysis of each claimant’s particular circumstances. This followed the reasoning in Hollick in which the Supreme Court had found that an environmental claim should not be certified as a class proceeding because the individual issues far outweighed the common issues.

The Court of Appeal agreed in principle, but found that now that the cause of action in this case had been restricted to diminution of property value, the only individualized aspects that would remain outstanding after resolution of the common issue of whether public disclosure of nickel contamination had a detectable impact on house value, was quantification of the impact that the public disclosure had on each property. The Court of Appeal held that determination of that common issue was not negligible, and to that extent, economy of justice would be served if the common issues were addressed in a class proceeding.

(b) Access to Justice: The motion judge found that the plaintiff had not met this test because there were viable alternatives to a class action in the form of (i) a remediation programme Inco had submitted to (known as the CBRA); (ii) joinder; or (iii) test case actions. While noting that the CBRA was a strong alternative, the Court of Appeal was not convinced that remediation alone was sufficient to address the injuries claimed to have occurred (unlike the compensation process in Hollick, the CBRA did not address monetary claims). Further, the Court of Appeal did not view test or joinder actions to be viable alternatives in this context because many of the claimants were old with little means of vigorously pursuing a test or joinder action against Inco.

(c) Behavioural modification: The motion judge did not believe that certifying the action as a class proceeding would serve the goal of behaviour modification since modification of behaviour was already in progress (Inco’s activities are already being monitored, and Inco had already agreed to remediation efforts under the banner of the CBRA). The motion judge was concerned that certifying the class action might cause Inco to become less cooperative. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision holding that the prospect of Inco becoming less cooperative should not be a factor in denying a class action.

5. There must be a representative plaintiff. In holding that Mr. Pearson had failed to meet the representative plaintiff test, the motion judge had focused on the uncertainty that Mr. Pearson had the ability to meet the costs that would be incurred in pursuing the class action. Secondly, the motion judge found that the litigation plan was not specific enough, failing to incorporate all of the required elements within the body of the plan itself. Thirdly, he felt that Mr. Pearson would have a conflict with other members of the proposed class in that he was a resident of an area that had been particularly adversely affected, and would likely take a much more aggressive approach than other, less affected, claimants.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had erred in imposing a requirement that Mr. Pearson prove at the outset that he has capacity to bear the costs of the action. Certainly, if large costs are outstanding at the time of the certification motion, this could be taken into consideration, but that was not the case here. The Court of Appeal held that since there is no legislation expressly imposing such a requirement, this should not be imposed by the courts.

In relation to the litigation plan, the Court of Appeal felt that the motion judge had taken an "unreasonably rigid" view by requiring that all of the details for the litigation be within the four corners of the plan itself. The Court of Appeal followed the more generous approach it had taken in Cloud, noting that all of the elements of the litigation plan could be pieced together from the plan itself and supporting affidavits, and that it was not necessary for the litigation plan itself to embody all of the plan in one document.

Finally, the Court of Appeal held that the fact that Mr. Pearson was a member of a group which was more severely impacted than other members does not of itself represent a conflict of interest precluding him from being the representative plaintiff, stating that it "would be an odd result if this appellant’s obvious interest in vigorously prosecuting the claim was seen as disqualifying him as the representative plaintiff", and going on to comment that in its view, the court should be more concerned with a "straw man" plaintiff who had no particular interest in the litigation.

(Note: The Court of Appeal released revised reasons in Pearson v. Inco Ltd. on January 19, 2006, replacing the reasons released on November 18, 2005, "to correct certain slips." The result was not changed.)

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
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.