Comments on: Inco to pay $36 million in Port Colborne class action

By: Globe & Mail: Vale appeals landmark environmental ruling « The Business of Cleantech

Tue, 10 May 2011 22:16:59 +0000

[...] for Vale SA head into a Toronto courtroom on Monday to appeal a groundbreaking class-action ruling that ordered the company to pay homeowners in Port Colborne, Ont., $36-million in compensation for [...]

By: Kristy

Kristy — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:58:10 +0000

I believe people should seek answers, but so far they are misinformed as to which questions they should be asking. Further more I feel the real question should be, what is it that Vale Inco plans to do once this case has come to a finish? Thus far in history Inco has created serious health issues with their employees, and the resisdents in the area, do they plan to create a better working and living envornment or simply continue on it's current path?

By: Kristy

Kristy — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:57:36 +0000

In my opinion, it is very likely, that the information shared among the residents pertaning to this case, has falling to a minimal. Excuse my forwardness, but It's hard to believe that the people are truely informed. I have read all the information provided to the resisdents on the East side and still, I am seek answers. I feel, the impact that this misfortune has brought onto the health of the poeple who live here, is far more serious, then any one has taking time to consider. What I fail to comprehend, is why does INCO fail to provided the public ,with information pertaining to the effects of their situational cohabitation. In short, there are long terms effects that this company has created, not only on it's employees,but also the people who live in it's derect emvironment.

By: DSS

DSS — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 19:53:55 +0000

Sorry, Eugene, you\’ll have to ask the lawyers handling the case.
Best wishes

By: Eugene

Eugene — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:27:58 +0000

Assuming that the suit was not done pro bono, what will be left of the amount that is actually dispersed?

By: DSS

DSS — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:17:50 +0000

Eugene,
The appeal has to be decided first.
Dianne

By: Eugene

Eugene — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:04:39 +0000

any updates?
I have land in the affected area and wondering when/if there is going to be a payout.

By: Dianne Saxe

Dianne Saxe — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:49:37 +0000

Hi, Eileen, try http://www.koskieminsky.com.
Best wishes
Dianne

By: Eileen Dunne

Eileen Dunne — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:18:31 +0000

Can you still sign up for this class action suit and how would you go about it. My mother owned a home on the west side very close to the canal. She sold her home in July 2001

By: DSS

DSS — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:58:27 +0000

Timothy Petrou writes:
The recent decision in Ontario's Smith v. Inco has caused quite a stir in Canadian environmental law. The case sets new precedents for the doctrine of strict liability and class action proceedings, and it will surely breathe new life into toxic tort litigation in Canada. The West Coast Environmental Law Association has an excellent summary of some of the implications of the case that can be found here :http://bit.ly/aH4f3L
My interest in this case was peaked while reading the decision and noting that Henderson J. seems to exhibit the tell tale signs of an eco-pragmatist in his reasoning. Eco-pragmatism as Daniel Farber puts it, is an environmental decision making tool "to make intelligent judgments in hard cases." Two hallmarks of eco-pragmatism are hybrid cost-benefit analyses and an environmental baseline. The hybrid cost-benefit analysis is essentially a feasibility analysis that uses a cost-benefit analysis for determining what is feasible. The environmental baseline is a default presumption in favour of environmental protection. (see Daniel A. Farber, "Eco-Pragmatism." 1999 for an in depth description of eco-pragmatism)
Looking at the Henderson J. decision we see reference to reasonable use of land, reasonable limitation periods, and reasonable causes of action. The precedents this case seem to overturn, or at least redefine, are interpreted in a new way by the reasonable person. Inco claimed that their use of the land was reasonable but the Court did not agree. This decision suggests that Inco should have prevented risks to nearby properties when feasible. It became feasible, if not obligatory, once Inco's activities resulted in a negative cost burden to the detriment of the property owners. With respect to an environmental baseline, in reading this decision it would be difficult not to notice the primacy of environmental protection in the reasoning. Henderson J. even goes so far as to state that:
"Objectively, even if the nickel accumulation in the soil does not affect human health, the accumulation of a foreign substance on a property owner's land that causes a loss of property value is material." at paragraph 88
Culpability is presumed when the environment is being degraded irrespective of human health. The degradation is measured by a loss of property value.
So my question, has Smith v. Inco informed the mind of the "reasonable person" in environmental law such that she now contemplates what is reasonable through the lens of an eco-pragmatist?

By: Tweets that mention Port Colborne residents win class action for nickel contamination -- Topsy.com

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:27:11 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Petrou, LawyerNexus. LawyerNexus said: Inco to pay $36 million in Port Colborne class action: Inco has been ordered to pay $36 million to past and pre.. http://bit.ly/a5E4kU [...]