Québec water case law 18: Authorisation denied for a class action further to rains and sewer backflow
Similar pages:
- Blog of law articles: Québec water case law 10: Municipal responsibility for disgorgement of septic tanks
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 9: Validity of a municipal regulation protecting riparian areas
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 8: Demolition of a new encroachement in the St Lawrence River riparian zone
- Blog of law articles: Québec water case law 21: The Court of Appeal upholds the validity of municipal by-laws for riparian zone protection
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 7: Class action for contamination of municipal groundwater sources
- Blog of law articles: Water case law in Québec 20: Municipal liability further to floods
(BY HUGO)
In Côté v. Montréal (Ville de) (in French), the Superior Court must decide whether to authorise a class action on behalf of all the persons having sustained damages further to the heavy rains of 2 August 2008 on the territory serviced by the water works and sewers of Montréal.
The motion to obtain authorisation alleges that the City's sewer system is outdated and inadequate, and that the City failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that flooding and sewer backflow would be avoided.
The Court first provides a brief overview of the principles applicable at the prior authorisation stage (see sections 1002 and ff. Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)).
Then, the Court proceeds to establish that the cumulative conditions required by section 1003 CCP have not been met: although the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought, the recourses of the members of the group do not raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact, notably because the sewer system is a fragmented patchwork under the responsibility of 19 different sub-municipal authorities and the amount of rain on 2 August 2008 varied significantly over the municipal territory.
Because of this, the Court does not decide whether the representative seeking to obtain the authorisation is in a position to represent the members of the class action adequately. The authorisation is denied.
In Côté v. Montréal (Ville de) (in French), the Superior Court must decide whether to authorise a class action on behalf of all the persons having sustained damages further to the heavy rains of 2 August 2008 on the territory serviced by the water works and sewers of Montréal.
The motion to obtain authorisation alleges that the City's sewer system is outdated and inadequate, and that the City failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that flooding and sewer backflow would be avoided.
The Court first provides a brief overview of the principles applicable at the prior authorisation stage (see sections 1002 and ff. Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)).
Then, the Court proceeds to establish that the cumulative conditions required by section 1003 CCP have not been met: although the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought, the recourses of the members of the group do not raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact, notably because the sewer system is a fragmented patchwork under the responsibility of 19 different sub-municipal authorities and the amount of rain on 2 August 2008 varied significantly over the municipal territory.
Because of this, the Court does not decide whether the representative seeking to obtain the authorisation is in a position to represent the members of the class action adequately. The authorisation is denied.
More related web entries for - Québec water case law 18: Authorisation denied for a class action further to rains and sewer backflow:
- undefined
- Water case law in Québec 20: Municipal liability further to floods
- Water case law in Québec 6: Municipal responsibility for watercourse maintenance
- Water case law in Québec 5: is there an increase in the enforcement of fish habitat protection?
- Québec water case law 19: interpreting section 56 of the Municipal Powers Act
- Water case law in Québec 4: defining fish habitat
- Québec water case law 17: «Lower land is subject to receiving water flowing onto it naturally from higher land»
- Water case law in Québec 3: groundwater extraction under the agricultural zoning regime
- Québec water case law 16: Causality and trout mortality
- Water case law in Québec 1: the undead property of water
- Québec water caselaw 15: Earthworks in a wetland without a valid municipal authorisation
- Québec water case law 14: Failure to obtain an authorisation to discharge waste water
- Québec water case law 13: Defective septic tank
- Québec water case law 12: The «sleeping giant» v. hydroelectric development?
- Québec water case law 11: obligations under a commercial lease and the cost of a well
- Follow-up on the sleeping giant in Québec water case law 12
- Québec water case law 21: The Court of Appeal upholds the validity of municipal by-laws for riparian zone protection
- Water case law in Québec 7: Class action for contamination of municipal groundwater sources
- Report on the implementation of the Québec Groundwater Catchment Regulation
- Federal Bill C-26: new restrictions on transboundary water tranfers?
- Hydraulic fracturing from shale gas exploitation pollutes drinking water
- Environmental flows in the UK: ecosystems vs. humans
- Water resources pricing in Québec
- U.S. congressional committee report on chemichals used in fracking fluids
- Report of the Commission on Cyanobacteria in Québec
- Shale gas exploitation and public interest in Texas
- Federal decision not to add the Gulf of St. Lawrence Winter Skate to the List of Species at risk
- Confirmation of agreement on the management of Lake Champlain
This entry was posted on at 3:24 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
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
(BY HUGO) Environmental Defence Canada recently published a report, Down the Drain: Water Conservation in the Great Lakes Basin , that shows...
-
(BY HUGO) The Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks has published 2 new project regulations . One is to amend the Regul...
-
To paraphrase Mark Harris , it seems that Scott Rothstein continues to rule our world. Here's the latest: 1. Bill Scherer sues the fir...
-
My students and readers of this blog know my support for Dana Corp 's approach to ensure that employees' right to select union r...
-
Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon has issued a report on social media cases. Anyone who fails to consider the NLRA in general and the...
-
So who else is going to the Federation Judicial Reception tonight: This year’s Judicial Reception will recognize three outstanding legal pr...
-
When I first read this story about a potential conflict of interest involving the "extremely Floridian" GrayRobinson that is bei...
-
I know how much Judge Silverman loves to preserve and celebrate our heritage, particularly as it relates to the courts and our rich South Fl...
-
(BY HUGO) On 27 October 2010, Professor Jake Peters from the USGS Georgia Water Science Centre will give a conference on inter-state tension...