More on the First Environmental Penalty
By digging behind the MOE press release we have discovered: The first environmental penalty was $9,000 for suspended solids escaping in storm water to a creek, contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act. CGC Inc. had a long -standing problem with suspended solids from its gypsum storage pil…
View the post titled More on the First Environmental PenaltyFirst Environmental Penalty
Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment has issued its first-ever environmental penalty under its so-called “you-spill, you-pay” legislation. Director Bill Bardswick ordered CGC Inc. of Hagersville to pay the province $9,000, for allowing contaminated runoff from its gypsum processing pl…
View the post titled First Environmental PenaltyNegligent Engineers – is the Public Protected?
Who should the public trust to do environmental site assessments? The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) proposes to sharply cut down the list of “Qualified Persons”, on the assumption that only Professional Engineers and Geoscientists have both qualifications and professional reg…
View the post titled Negligent Engineers – is the Public Protected?Crown appeals landmark ruling in Berendsen
To no one’s surprise, the Ontario government is appealing their loss in Berendsen v. the Queen. This is the case that ordered the Crown to pay $1.7 million in damages for contaminating a dairy farm, 40 years ago, with waste asphalt from road construction. Road waste is still deposited …
View the post titled Crown appeals landmark ruling in BerendsenIs it Enough to Meet MOE Standards?
Two Ontario cases in the last year decided that it’s not enough to meet MOE standards. One is Berendsen v. the Queen (see February 1). The other is Dawber v. Director, Ministry of the Environment. In Dawber, Lafarge obtained MOE approval to burn waste tires as fuel in its cement kiln. Lafarg…
View the post titled Is it Enough to Meet MOE Standards?Is it better to pay taxes on income or on pollution?
For forty years, Canadian environmental law has tried to defeat economics. That is, we have forbidden people and businesses from doing things that save them money, and commanded them to do things that cost money. In the circumstances, it’s amazing that we’ve accomplished so much: air is clea…
View the post titled Is it better to pay taxes on income or on pollution?Three Cheers for BC!
It is basic economics and good common sense: to discourage something, make it more expensive. And vice versa. So why does Canada put heavy taxes on things we do want (like employment) and no taxes on things we don’t want (like pollution)? For years, economists and environmentalists hav…
View the post titled Three Cheers for BC!Who's Best of the Best?
We’re proud to announce that Dianne has been named one of the world’s top 25 environmental lawyers by Euromoney. In their words: Guide to the World’s Leading Lawyers – Best of the Best 2008 Dear Ms. Saxe I write regarding the Expert Guides to the World’s Leading…
View the post titled Who's Best of the Best?Berendsen Changes the Rules for Contaminated Sites
Every so often, a court decision changes the rules. Everyone interested in contaminated sites needs to understand what Berendsen v. Ontario has changed.At first glance, there is nothing unusual about the facts. Farmer buys land for dream dairy farm. The cows become sick; he loses money. He b…
View the post titled Berendsen Changes the Rules for Contaminated SitesReceive Blog Posts
By subscribing to our blog, you will receive an email when a new post is added. You can unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to us at [email protected] with the word “unsubscribe” in the subject line.