So long, Quebec...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The companies were following, according to the article, most of these environmental laws to the letter. Taking a broad interpretation of a vague law and applying it to this situation is absolutely ridiculous. If they laws need changed according the people's wishes then fine. Do it the correct way through legislation. This is crap.

It is the law. The principle is codified in Civil Law legislation and found in Common Law precedent. The principle is that one man's rights end where another one's begins. One man's property rights end where another one's begins.

In our respective bouts of anti and pro Québec sentiments, Goofball and I overlooked something. Namely, that this case simply brings Québec in line with the legal systems of both anglophone Canada and France. In fact, standard practice in both systems were a consideration for this verdict.

Far from this being a case of 'communist Québec' being unfriendly to business, this case is another step in Québec emancipating itself from being a toilet where English Canada can dump its unwanted industry.


So long, Canada, you'll have to take your craps on your own territory. Can't over the fence and use Québec for that anymore.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Comparative Review of Canadian Common Law and French Civil Law

[76] At this stage in our analysis of liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances, we believe it will be helpful to consider how certain other legal systems approach the same kinds of problems. We will therefore briefly review the solutions adopted in Canadian common law and French civil law.

[77] At common law, nuisance is a field of liability that focuses on the harm suffered rather than on prohibited conduct (A. M. Linden and B. Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law (8th ed. 2006), at p. 559; L. N. Klar, Tort Law (2nd ed. 1996), at p. 535). Nuisance is defined as unreasonable interference with the use of land (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 559; Klar, at p. 535). Whether the interference results from intentional, negligent or non‑faulty conduct is of no consequence provided that the harm can be characterized as a nuisance (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 559). The interference must be intolerable to an ordinary person (p. 568). This is assessed by considering factors such as the nature, severity and duration of the interference, the character of the neighbourhood, the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s use and the utility of the activity (p. 569). The interference must be substantial, which means that compensation will not be awarded for trivial annoyances (Linden and Feldthusen, at p. 569; Klar, at p. 536).

[78] In France, the Court of Cassation accepts as a principle of law that [translation] “no one may cause an abnormal neighbourhood disturbance to another” (J. Carbonnier, Droit civil (2004), vol. II, at p. 1785; P. Malinvaud, Droit des obligations (8th ed. 2003), at p. 404; Viney and Jourdain, at pp. 1069‑70). This principle is not based on art. 1382 of the Civil Code (Malinvaud, at p. 404; Viney and Jourdain, at p. 1069). Liability for damage resulting from abnormal neighbourhood disturbances is thus independent of fault, and a finding of excessive injury or abnormal disturbance is all that is needed to trigger it (Viney and Jourdain, at pp. 1069 and 1079). However, trivial annoyances caused by relations between neighbours will not trigger liability (Starck, Roland and Boyer, at p. 169).

[79] Thus, in both these legal systems, a scheme of no‑fault liability in respect of neighbourhood disturbances is accepted in one form or another. Their schemes seem analogous to the one that can be inferred from art. 976 C.C.Q.

[Papewaio]

Sounds like the ruling might not hold up the letter of the law, it certainly upholds the spirit of the law and hence justice far more nicely.

The law if just sees everyone as equal. So their is no good reason that a company should be allowed leeway within the law because it might effect its bottom line. Local people should be allowed justice, even if the plant has been their for generations. Age should not exclude a company for complying with laws or community standards. To say otherwise is to state that all ancient companies may use lead paint, child labour and slavery.

Let the companies come screaming and kicking into the 21st century. If a company wants all the benefits as a person on paper, they need to be upheld to the same standards as the rest of the community. That includes the golden rule and not to curtail the freedoms and bounty of others.

Also most law Gaelic or otherwise has the 'reasonable person' litmus test. Being would a reasonable person in the same situation act in such a manner or accept the situation at hand. If you think the average person is not accepting of pollutants then the pollution must be with all reasonable ability curtailed.

I am more interested how the special legislation was allowed in the first place, whose palms were greased for that? Is it okay that they health of future citizens be impeded because of the graft of prior ones?

Also just because a company upholds the environmental laws, does not mean it was upholding the good neighbour laws. Just because someone drives a Prius does not absolve him of parking tickets or running someone over.

[lars573]

Far from this being a case of 'communist Québec' being unfriendly to business, this case is another step in Québec emancipating itself from being a toilet where English Canada can dump its unwanted industry.


So long, Canada, you'll have to take your craps on your own territory. Can't over the fence and use Québec for that anymore.

Visit Saint John New Brunswick where there is both an oil refinery and pulp mill in the center of the city. And the city water sources are so unclean that the water smells like it came from a public pool. Then try and make that crack. Or google Sydney tar ponds.