Assignment Task: When Ellen Smith discovered there was significant nickel pollution in the soil on her Port Colborne, Ontario home in 2000, she got concerned. The nickel refinery owned by Inco Ltd., which operated in the area from 1918 to 1984, was where the nickel particles were produced. She was not the only one who worried about the potential health concerns and declining property values brought on by such contamination. In response, a class action lawsuit against Inco was filed on behalf of almost 7000 residential property owners.
The judge decided that the nickel fragments caused actual physical harm to the contested properties during the trial. He also concluded that the properties in question did not increase in value as much as they would have otherwise because to probable public health issues around such deposits. The trial judge gave the plaintiffs a $36 million damage judgement based on this justification.
The Court of Appeal reversed this award in 2011. The court found that the nickel deposits merely altered the chemical composition of the soil, much like fertiliser might do. They did not physically injure the properties in question. The plaintiffs must demonstrate a negative impact on the land itself or on the owners' use of it in order to succeed in their case. It wasn't enough that nickel dust in the soil caused people to worry about possible health risks. The plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the value of their properties had not increased sufficiently, according to the court's ruling. The lawsuit was dismissed, and Inco received a $100,000 cost award. The appeal was not accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada.
What risks do plaintiffs assume when they file a lawsuit of this nature? Do the potential rewards exceed the risks? How does the possibility of legal action increase industry responsibility for the contamination it may cause?