Millions for offsite gasoline contamination
The Ontario Superior Court has awarded millions to a neighbouring property owner for historic offsite gasoline contamination. The decision in Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. v. Huron Concrete Supply Ltd. illustrates, and will perpetuate, the continuing confusion over liability for off site gr…
View the post titled Millions for offsite gasoline contaminationAlberta TCE class action – claims in trespass, nuisance, Rylands v. Fletcher dismissed
Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) operated a train repair facility, known as the Ogden shops, since the early 1900s in a heavily industrialized area outside Calgary. Over the years, a residential area grew up around the shops. TCE was used as a degreaser in the shops from the mid-1950s to the m…
View the post titled Alberta TCE class action – claims in trespass, nuisance, Rylands v. Fletcher dismissedSunrise Propane explosion – landlords added to class action
Here’s an update on the Sunrise Propane explosion in Downsview, Ontario, and the gradual progress of the class action by the aggrieved neighbours. In July 2012, the Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice certified a class action against all proposed defendants except the Teskey defendants, whic…
View the post titled Sunrise Propane explosion – landlords added to 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 certifiedMichaud v Sun Corp
Michaud v. Sun Corp. is a civil action that has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court by a neighbour of the Kent Breeze Wind Farm. Unlike the Hanna and Erickson cases, which unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the permitting of wind projects, the Michaud case seeks damages and an inju…
View the post titled Michaud v Sun CorpMore thinking about Smith v Inco
We continue to mull over Smith v. Inco, and the major implications that has for virtually all cases involving Rylands v. Fletcher, and for a significant number of nuisance cases. Watch our video on the case, made in cooperation with Nimonik. Then please let us know what you think.
View the post titled More thinking about Smith v IncoEnvironmental 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 actionLawsuit for noise and odour
Noise and odour are frequent sources of neighbourhood disputes. Sometimes those disputes can be resolved by turning to regulators, such as the Ministry of the Environment or municipal bylaw enforcement officers. Often, however, that isn’t enough. Some then turn to the courts.
View the post titled Lawsuit for noise and odourTaking climate change to the courts
On Friday, October 16, a second major US appeals court ruled that victims of climate change can sue polluters. In Comer v. Murphy Oil USA (5th Cir.), victims of Hurricane Katrina sued a number of companies that produce fossil fuels for causing greenhouse gas emissions that contributed to cli…
View the post titled Taking climate change to the courtsMy neighbour cut down my tree: can I sue?
My neighbour came onto my property and cut down my tree. Can I sue?
View the post titled My neighbour cut down my tree: can I sue?Receive 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.