Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Spieser v Canada

País/Territorio
Canadá
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Jun 21, 2012
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Quebec Superior Court
Juez
Godbout.
Número de referencia
2012 QCCS 2801
Idioma
Francés
Materia
Agua, Cuestiones jurídicas
Palabra clave
Salud pública Sustancias peligrosas Efluente de aguas residuales/vertido Responsabilidad/indemnización Acceso-a-la-justicia
Resumen
The Plaintiff, Marie-Paule Spieser (Ms. Spieser), sued the Government of Canada, a research center and a munitions manufacturer on the grounds that they had allegedly spilled trichloroethylene (TCE) on the ground, leading to a contamination of the water table and drinking water wells of the residents of the Municipality of Shannon. Ms. Spieser alleged that this TCE contamination was the cause of an abnormally high number of instances of cancer, illnesses and other ill effects among former and current residents of Shannon. Ms. Spieser sought compensation and damages and also injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to take measures to decontaminate the water table. She also claimed punitive damages related to injuries to the physical integrity of class members and to the enjoyment of their property. The Québec Superior Court ruled that the residents hadn’t proved the TCE contamination caused increased cases of cancer but it did find that the water contamination was a nuisance. The court noted that it wasn’t known when the TCE reached the different water supply sources or what the TCE concentration level was in the water in the past. In addition, the evidence didn’t prove that it was specifically the TCE that caused the cancers that some residents developed. In fact, some of the types of cancer aren’t associated with exposure to TCE. And the same number of cancer cases was found among people living in residences whose water contained increased TCE concentrations as among those living in residences whose water contained minimal or even non-existent TCE concentrations. So the court concluded that the residents had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it was likely that the defendants had contaminated the water table with TCE and that there was a causal link between this contamination and the damages claimed. But the court did find that the defendants’ contamination of the water table and wells amounted to an abnormal nuisance. When the well contamination became known, some residents were deprived of drinking water for a year. So the court awarded $12,000 ($1,000 per month) to those residents for the fears, worries, troubles and nuisances associated with having lost a source of drinking water under such circumstances. Residents with children in an affected residence got an additional $3,000. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the residents’ expert fees, which exceeded $1.6 million. As to the requested order, the court refused to issue one, noting that the defendants were already carrying out the necessary decontamination measures.
Texto completo
COU-159489.pdf