Port 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 dismissedTar sands polluting the Athabaska River
How do the tar sands operators get away with polluting the great Athabaska River, despite federal and provincial laws that allegedly protect rivers? By insisting that everything is fine, and that all the pollution is “natural”. Now, Professor David Schindler has blown their cover…
View the post titled Tar sands polluting the Athabaska RiverAir 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.