fmc-law.com RSS Feeds - Publications - Environmentalhttp://www.fmc-law.com/upload_net/rss/en/Environmental.xmlThu, 31 May 2012 10:01:15 GMTen-us5In this issue of Focus on Environmental Law, FMC Articling Student Ryan Maynard discusses the limitation periods after Hamilton (City) v Metcalfe & Mansfield Capital Corporation. In Hamilton (City) v Metcalfe & Mansfield Capital Corporation (“Metcalfe”), the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) examined limitation periods and the discoverability principle in an action for negligent misrepresentation. While this decision does not directly deal with environmental law, the distinction between “damage” and “damages” will have a significant impact on the application of limitation periods in contaminated land litigation. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law_Hamilton_Metcalfe_Mansfield_Capital_Corp.aspxThu, 17 May 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law_Hamilton_Metcalfe_Mansfield_Capital_Corp.aspxIt has been said that doing what you’ve always done gets you what you’ve always gotten. On October 31, 2011, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the “MOE”) moved forward with the modernization of its environmental approvals process. The MOE describes the new online system as “smarter” and “faster”. It is intended to make environmental compliance easier for businesses, to provide public access to information on businesses that impact the environment and to assist with the enforcement of Ontario’s environmental standards. The changes will have a considerable impact on Ontario’s regulated businesses. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law_Ontario_New_Environmental_Approvals.aspxTue, 08 May 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law_Ontario_New_Environmental_Approvals.aspxOn April 26, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) refused leave to appeal from the reversal of a $36 million environmental class action award against Inco. As usual, the SCC did not give reasons for declining to hear the appeal. The refusal of the leave application means the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) will stand (See November 2011 Focus on Environmental Law). The parties now face a determination of the trial costs awarded to Inco (costs of the appeal have been fixed at $100,000). Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law.aspxTue, 01 May 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0512_Focus_On_Environmental_Law.aspxIn this issue of Focus on Environmental Law, the following topic is discussed: Quebec adopts new cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances On December 15, 2011, Pierre Arcand, Quebec’s Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks, announced the adoption of the Regulation respecting the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances, which implements the first cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission ("GHG") allowances in Canada. The regulation came into force on January 1, 2012. This regulation follows the draft regulation, which was adopted on July 7, 2011. It is based on the rules established by the Western Climate Initiative ("WCI"), which is composed of six U.S. states, as well as Ontario, British-Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec. Quebec adopted this regulation closely after California adopted its regulation implementing a cap-and-trade system for GHG emission on October 20, 2011, a program that will also begin on January 1, 2013. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Focus_on_Environmental.aspxMon, 26 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Focus_on_Environmental.aspxOn February 9, 2012,  the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”) issued its decision in Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) v. David Suzuki Foundation, 2012 FCA 40, dismissing the appeal of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (the “Minister”) and holding that ministerial discretion does not “legally protect” critical habitat under section 58 of the Species at Risk Act S.C. 2002 c. 29 (“SARA”). The FCA further held that it was unlawful for the Minister to have cited discretionary provisions of the Fisheries Act R.S.C., 1985, c. F-14, in a protection statement concerning the critical habitat of the Northeast and Southern populations of killer whales. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Suri_Kanika_New_Federal_Court_of_Appeal_Decision_Protect_Killer_Whale_Habitats.aspxTue, 20 Mar 2012 06:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Suri_Kanika_New_Federal_Court_of_Appeal_Decision_Protect_Killer_Whale_Habitats.aspxIn this article, David Hunter, Nalin Sahni and George McKibbon (McKibbon Wakefield Inc.) discuss the “Drummond Report” on rethinking Provincial governance and Ontario’s economy and its impact on the mining industry. The Drummond Report calls for increased mining taxes and user fees and "a new paradigm for environmental and natural resource programs", licensing, and services that could both hinder and simplify mining development and operations. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Hunter_Sahni_Drummond_Report.aspxTue, 06 Mar 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0312_Hunter_Sahni_Drummond_Report.aspxIn this article, David McCutcheon discusses the advantages of arbitration for environmental disputes. First of all, an arbitrator with an environmental background either in law or engineering or both is able to assess complicated environmental evidence using a practical approach instead of a purely legal approach to liability. Furthermore, the parties to an arbitration have the power to have the matter heard privately under confidentiality agreements which protect the environmental elements from outside scrutiny while at the same time providing a full disclosure hearing to the parties. The parties can also adapt the hearing process to their particular needs through case management by the arbitrator who is hearing the ultimate case. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/z_McCutcheon_Arbitration_of_Environmental_Disputes.aspxMon, 06 Feb 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/z_McCutcheon_Arbitration_of_Environmental_Disputes.aspxThe Wahgoshig First Nation (“WFN”) in Northern Ontario has obtained an injunction to temporarily stop Solid Gold Resources Corp. (“Solid Gold”), a junior mining company, from drilling on their First Nation Treaty lands.  In a decision released last week (2011 ONSC 7708 (CanLII)), Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court halted all exploration activities for at least 120 days after finding that Solid Gold had repeatedly failed to respond to consultation requests from both WFN and the Ontario Government. While this decision should not come as a surprise to knowledgeable observers, it is important for three reasons: 1) It confirms that as yet there is no Aboriginal veto over mining exploration activities;2) It highlights problems with the Crown’s practice of delegating the consultation to proponents and 3) It reiterates that the “free entry” mining system in Ontario is limited by Aboriginal consultation. Companies that are not mindful of Aboriginal concerns will see their business plans delayed or cancelled. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Focus_on_Environmental_Law.aspxWed, 18 Jan 2012 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/0112_Focus_on_Environmental_Law.aspxIn this issue of Focus on Environmental Law, Nalin Sahni discusses the dismissal of the environmental class action award against Inco. In a 3-0 decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal has reversed a $36 million trial award to members of an environmental class action. Thousands of Port Colborne, Ontario’s residents had sued Inco for property devaluation caused by soil contamination arising from 66 years of nickel refining emissions. Smith v. Inco Ltd. (formerly Pearson v. Inco Ltd.) is notable as one of the first environmental class actions to go to a full trial on the common issues. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision makes it much more difficult to pursue claims of private nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability and also clarifies the application of limitation periods for class actions. A copy of this article in French will be available on our website later this week. Read more by clicking the download button.http://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1111_Focus_On_Environmental_Law.aspxWed, 09 Nov 2011 07:00:00 GMThttp://www.fmc-law.com/Publications/1111_Focus_On_Environmental_Law.aspx