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

(f)
(g)
(h)
Used raw materials, including coal and ore, of inferior quality which they it
knew would result in the emission of higher levels of Operational
Emissions and Tar Ponds Contaminants than would occur if better quality
coal and ore were used;
Did not conduct their its own air, soil and water monitoring, or, in the
alternative, if they it did, did not share the results of such monitoring with
the Plaintiffs and Class Members; and
Continued to operate the Steel Works when they it knew or ought to have
known that the Operational Emissions and Tar Ponds Contaminants were
causing or were likely to cause serious harm to the Plaintiffs and Class
Members.
107. 92.When the Defendants Nova Scotia and SYSCO assumed operation of the Steel
Works from Ispat and Hawker Siddeley in 1967, they were already aware of the
facts set out at paragraph 102 89 above. They owed the same duty of care as
Ispat and Hawker Siddeley, and breached it in the same way as Ispat and
Hawker Siddeley did.
108. 93.Canada was also aware of all of those facts in 1968 when it assumed operation
of the Coke Ovens. During the period when Canada operated the Coke Ovens, it
breached its duties to the Plaintiffs and Class Members in the same ways as and
Hawker Siddeley Ispat listed above.
109. 94.In 1973, as a result of the Havelock Study, the Defendants Canada, Nova Scotia
and SYSCO knew that in order to meet the National Ambient Air Quality
Objectives in Sydney,
(a)
(b)
Suspended particulates from the Steel Works would need to be reduced
by 98% from the levels present in 1972; and
Sulphur dioxide emissions from the Steel Works would have to be
reduced by 54% from 1972 levels.
110. 95.In 1974, as a result of the Choquette Study, the Defendants Canada, Nova
Scotia and SYSCO knew that:
35