Dianne’s Halifax presentation on contaminated site litigation
Here is Dianne’s presentation to the Canadian Bar Association Mid-winter meeting in Halifax, on Contaminated Site Litigation after Inco. We include a really useful list of Caveat emptor case summaries, with thanks to researcher Kristen Courtney.
View the post titled Dianne’s Halifax presentation on contaminated site litigationInco awarded $1,766,000 in costs for contamination class action
Justice J. R. Henderson of the Ontario Superior Court has awarded Inco $1,766,000 in legal costs arising from the Smith v. Inco nickel contamination class action in Port Colborne, Ontario. This is less than a quarter of Inco’s actual legal costs, which exceeded $5,340,000 after certi…
View the post titled Inco awarded $1,766,000 in costs for contamination class actionSydney Tar Ponds class action certified
After eight years of legal wrangling, the Sydney Tar Ponds class action has finally been certified. However, the plaintiffs’ chances of ultimate success will be significantly reduced if the Smith v. Inco decision stands.
View the post titled Sydney Tar Ponds class action certifiedWill the SCC grant leave in Smith v Inco?
Will the Supreme Court of Canada grant leave to Ellen Smith to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal rejecting her class action against Inco for the historic nickel contamination of soil in Port Colborne?
View the post titled Will the SCC grant leave in Smith v Inco?Smith v Inco appeal application
Kirk Baert has kindly permitted us to post his Application to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Smith v. Inco. This was the first environmental contamination class action in Canada tried on its merits. The Appeal Court’s dec…
View the post titled Smith v Inco appeal applicationEnvironmental causes of action
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Smith v Inco is requiring Canadian environmental lawyers to carefully rethink environmental causes of action–who can sue who for what? How can Smith v. Inco be reconciled with St. Lawrence Cement v. Barrette? (Different type of nuisance). Why can non-to…
View the post titled Environmental causes of actionPort Colborne class action dismissed
Can neighbours sue for historic contamination? The leading Canadian case has been Pearson (later Smith) v. Inco, a class action by thousands of Port Colborne property owners against Inco, for alleged losses in property value due to nickel oxide that was legally deposited in the area during t…
View the post titled Port Colborne class action dismissedAir pollution class action against the tar sands?
The successful class action by Port Colborne residents, Smith v. Inco, has opened the door to a similar class action against the tar sands. In Inco, nickel particles were emitted from the refinery for 80 years. There was no proof that Inco ever operated illegally or negligently, or failed …
View the post titled Air pollution class action against the tar sands?Limitations: why not too late to sue for contamination?
No one can count any longer on the limitation period having run for any of it.
View the post titled Limitations: why not too late to sue for contamination?Inco to pay $36 million in Port Colborne class action
Inco has been ordered to pay $36 million to past and present property owners in Port Colborne, for lost property value due to historic nickel contamination. None of the contamination occurred after 1984, and Inco complied with all applicable laws during the operation of its refinery. Nevert…
View the post titled Inco to pay $36 million in Port Colborne class actionReceive 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.