June 24, 2009 - Order re: 4th Amended Statement of Claim - Wagners

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Injuries Act, R.S.N.S., c. 163, s. 1. Iris Crawford claims, pursuant to the Fatal Injuries Act, supra, for herself and their four children, being Cheryl Ann Crawford (born December 14, 1960), Carl Alonzo Crawford (born December 16, 1961), Rhonda Georgina Crawford (born July 24, 1965), and Carol Lynn Crawford (June 20, 1968). 77. 68. In addition, Mrs. Crawford has suffered and continues to suffer from anxiety about her and her family’s health because of the contaminated environment in which they live or have lived. This Plaintiff states that all of the Defendants bear the responsibility to, inter alia, create a medical monitoring fund/mechanism as described in paragraphs 140 144 116-120 below that would give her and Class Members access to experts who could identify and address their health concerns. V. LIABILITY (A) Battery (i) The Steel Works Defendants 78. 69. The Steel Works Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for having committed the intentional tort of battery. During the period that each of them operated the Steel Works or a portion thereof (as set out above), they knew or were substantially certain, as a result of (a) in the case of Ispat and Hawker Siddeley, the Katz Study, and (b) (a) in the case of Canada, Nova Scotia and SYSCO, the Katz Study, the Choquette Study and the Havelock Study that people living in the Neighbourhoods would inhale, ingest and have dermal exposure to the Operational Emissions and Tar Ponds Contaminants produced by the Steel Works. The Steel Works Defendants knew what these emissions contained, and that inhalation, ingestion and dermal exposure to the Operational Emissions and Tar Ponds Contaminants constituted a non-trivial interference with the bodily security of the Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Steel Works Defendants intentionally continued to emit the Operational Emissions and Tar 26
Ponds Contaminants, with full knowledge and intention that the Plaintiffs and Class Members would be exposed to them. 78A. 70.In the alternative, the Steel Works Defendants are liable for the tort of negligent battery. The Steel Works Defendants' operation of the Steel Works caused the Contaminants to come into contact with the Plaintiffs and Class Members. Despite their knowledge that this contact would occur if they failed to take adequate steps to prevent it from occurring (as pleaded at paragraphs 106 108 92-93), the Steel Works Defendants continued to emit the Contaminants without regard to the fact that those Contaminants would come into contact with and cause harm to the Plaintiffs and Class Members as a direct result of their conduct. 79. 71. The Operational Emissions and Tar Ponds Contaminants were deposited in the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' respiratory bronchioles and alveoli, and introduced into the persons of the Plaintiffs and Class Members by way of ingestion and dermal exposure. Such exposure is linked to adverse health effects including premature death and cancer and lung disease. (ii) Domtar 80. Domtar is also liable to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for battery. Domtar intentionally deposited the Domtar Contaminants on the Coke Ovens Lands, from where it knew that they would migrate into the Sydney Tar Ponds and the Neighbourhoods. 81. Domtar accordingly knew and intended or unreasonably disregarded the risk that the Plaintiffs and Class Members would be exposed to the Domtar Contaminants by inhalation, ingestion and dermal exposure when it dumped the Domtar Contaminants onto the Coke Ovens Lands, and abandoned its operations there. (B) Strict Liability and Nuisance 82. 72. Each of the Defendants is liable pursuant to the doctrine of strict liability in Rylands v. Fletcher, in that the storage and release of the Contaminants is a nonnatural use of the lands owned and/or occupied by each of the Defendants. Further, the Defendants failed, and continue to fail, to prevent the escape of 27
Page 5 and 6: Form 4.03B SCHEDULE “A” 2004 Hf
Page 7 and 8: (k) (i) CNR Operations means the ra
Page 9 and 10: (iii) Have lived within the Class B
Page 11 and 12: III. DEFENDANTS (A) Steel Works Def
Page 13 and 14: occupier of the lands in question,
Page 15 and 16: ethybenzene, xylene, phenols and he
Page 17 and 18: year horizon for the effective reme
Page 19 and 20: 42. 34. In 1982, the Defendant Cana
Page 21 and 22: Members did not know and were preve
Page 23 and 24: FEDERAL STATUTE CITATION RELEVANT S
Page 25 and 26: PROVINCIAL STATUTE CITATION RELEVAN
Page 27 and 28: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons an
Page 29: market value of 192 Laurier Street
Page 33 and 34: Plaintiffs and Class Members. They
Page 35 and 36: Members through the air in the form
Page 37 and 38: (a) (b) (c) The Operational Emissio
Page 39 and 40: (f) (g) (h) Used raw materials, inc
Page 41 and 42: (ii) CNR 116. 101.The Defendant CNR
Page 43 and 44: exercise a sufficient standard of c
Page 45 and 46: Operations (in the case of Domtar)
Page 47 and 48: 133. 109.The Plaintiffs state that
Page 49 and 50: (C) Family Losses: 145. 121.As well
Page 51 and 52: (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)(i) (k)(j) (

June 24, 2009 - Order re: 4th Amended Statement of Claim - Wagners

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?