So long, Quebec...

[lars573]

Kush I think Louis read the entire article. Including the parts at the end that Goofball left off. Like how the company had special legislation passed so it could open in 1952. And that by 1955 the community and the plant were fighting over noise and emissoins. Or that the ceased operation in 1997. Or that this suit has been going on since 1994.

[Kralizec]

”One, under the ordinary rules of civil liability, is based on the wrongful conduct of the person who allegedly caused the disturbances. The second is a regime of no-fault liability based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim ... ”

The second branch will be ”based on the annoyances suffered by the victim being excessive, rather than on the conduct of the person who allegedly caused them,” the court said.

This doesn't seem like a bad approach on paper, but from the rest of the article I get the impression that it was used to cave in to NIMBY sentiments.

Maybe the people who lived there in '55 should have gotten compensation. After more than two generations down the line, though...

[Ice]

Kush I think Louis read the entire article. Including the parts at the end that Goofball left off. Like how the company had special legislation passed so it could open in 1952. And that by 1955 the community and the plant were fighting over noise and emissoins. Or that the ceased operation in 1997. Or that this suit has been going on since 1994.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to in my previous post.

Bah. Some may leave, others will come. We've increased wages, decreased working hours, increased enviromental laws, etc all the time over the past century. Every time, the industry has cried for the end of the world. Yet all the time, our wealth has steadily increased. And if I may be so bold, it's because of laws like this.

This one isn't going to change that. Just like the thousands of other laws we have passed didn't change it.

May I see a shred of proof to back up this assertion? It doesn't even have to be a link.

I'm sure you are also aware that correlation doesn't always equal causation as I've said before.

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.

I'm aware of how the law is theoretically suppose to work. I believe that the courts have taken this system, which allows for a great deal of leeway on the court's part, and blown it out of proportion.

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

.


I didn't know French law worked like that. It's nice to know.

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.

*Shrugs*

If you don't want the industry, then don't cry when the effects of such said action occur.

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.

This will actually make the rest of Canada less dependent on Quebec which would be a bad thing IMHO.

[lars573]

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to in my previous post.

The entire debate you and Louis were having. Mostly that it's all academic. The jobs your arguing for were lost 11 years ago, and the environmental impact he's arguing against stopped then too.

This will actually make the rest of Canada less dependent on Quebec which would be a bad thing IMHO.

As far as the manufacturing sector goes Ontario is the power house (which is why it's taking a huge economic beating in the current recession). Quebec is a respectable second.