Québec water case law 16: Causality and trout mortality
In Michaud v. Équipements ESF inc (in French), the Court of Appeal is on appeal of a judgement rejecting an action in civil liability for damages sustained by the owner of an aquaculture business comprised of a few artificial lakes seeded with trout as a result of heavy fish mortality allegedly caused by hydrocarbon contamination leaking through soil from a neighbouring industrial shop.
In first instance, the damages are established, as is environmental contamination from hydrocarbon leakage. The debate focuses on the causality link between the damages and the leak as well as on the evaluation and award of expert costs. Both these issues are on appeal.
With respect to causality, the Court states the principles relevant to the application of a presumption of causality and refers sections 2804, 2811 and 2849 of the Civil Code of Québec as well as to Morin v. Blais (SCC), Sarrazin v. Québec (Procureur général) (QCA - in French) and Longpré v. Thériault [1979] C.A. 258 (QCA) to find that circumstances are not serious, precise and concordant enough to give rise to a presumption establishing causality. The Court then proceeds to examine whether the appellant has met the burden of proof on causality to establish a link between hydrocarbon leakage and fish mortality under the light of the principles established in Lacasse v. Labrecque [1995] R.R.A. 596 (QCA). The Court concludes that evidence has not established on the balance of probability that fish mortality was caused by the leaks, and that the Superior Court has not made a manifest and dominant mistake on this point.
One last point worth mentioning is from the discussion about expert costs. At §94, the Court states that compliance with precedents stems from a public order imperative that allows justiciables to act and settle their disputes in a predictable framework («Le respect de l’autorité du précédent ne relève pas du caprice, mais elle reflète un impératif d’ordre public qui est de permettre aux justiciables de régler leurs affaires dans un cadre prévisible et d’agir dans ce cadre.»)
This entry was posted on at 2:04 AM and is filed under Case Law, Québec, Québec water case law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 April, the Québec Ministry for Sustainable development, Environment and Parks presented a regulation project on pricing of ...
-
Well kids I plan to scoot out of here shortly, to begin my long solemn weekend regimen of prayer , reflection , and expanding my abdomen , s...
-
(BY HUGO) Just a quick post to follow up on reports relating to shale gas leaks from wells in Québec. The Québec Ministry for Natural Resour...
-
(BY HUGO) Since the beginning of May, the flow of an emissary of Lake Champlain, the Richelieu River, is near or at record level, and a larg...
-
Former CFO for R. Allen Stanford, Jim Davis, pleaded guilty to fraud yesterday . This is probably not good news for Proskauer's Tom Sjob...
-
(BY HUGO) Les Cahiers de droit just published their issue 3 & 4, Vol. 51, a special issue on water law with many articles exploring int...
-
Billy Shields has a nice piece on the never-ending saga involving BDO Seidman and the new trial that commenced this week against BDO Intern...
-
Well kids it's the end of another work week (unless you are working all weekend or don't have a job at all), so I'm flying the c...
-
You know, I find it more than a little annoying that Scott Rothstein has stolen my 3d DCA "bunker" imagery. It's mine, dammit!...