Environmental Law Exam Notes

Environmental Protection & War

• Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs):

  • Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Capable of causing widespread death and long-term environmental devastation.

• Arms Control:

  • Treaties that limit the use and spread of destructive technologies.

  • Examples: Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Chemical Weapons Convention.

  • Aim: To reduce environmental damage from military conflicts.

• Nuclear-Free Zones:

  • Regions banning nuclear weapons and facilities.

  • Examples: New Zealand, cities with anti-nuclear resolutions.

• Test Bans:

  • Example: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

  • Aim: Prevent radioactive contamination of land and water.

Canadian Environmental Law Principles

• Sustainable Development (Brundtland Definition):

  • "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

• Environmental Assessment (EA):

  • A legal requirement before major development projects (e.g., pipelines, dams).

  • Ensures stakeholders review environmental impacts (air, water, biodiversity).

  • Key legislation: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Landmark Canadian Environmental Cases

• R. v. Imperial Oil Ltd.:

  • Facts: Imperial Oil polluted land with petroleum hydrocarbons; the government ordered a cleanup.

  • Issue: Could the company be forced to pay for cleaning contamination it caused?

  • Ruling: Yes, companies are responsible for remediating environmental damage they cause or contribute to.

  • Significance: Reinforced the polluter pays principle; affirmed governmental authority to enforce environmental cleanup.

• R. v. The KVP Co. Ltd. (1973):

  • Facts: KVP paper mill discharged chemicals into a river, harming downstream landowners and the environment.

  • Issue: Could a company pollute if it had a permit, or was it strictly liable under common law?

  • Ruling: Company was liable despite operating under a license.

  • Significance: Introduced the concept of strict liability. If harm occurs, intent doesn’t matter; the polluter is liable.

• Gauthier v. Naneff (1977):

  • Facts: Gauthier claimed that Naneff improperly disposed of industrial waste, impacting their property.

  • Issue: Was the defendant negligent in waste disposal?

  • Ruling: Court found Naneff responsible due to a lack of care and environmental negligence.

  • Significance: Reinforced personal liability for improper waste disposal under civil and environmental law.

• Norampac Inc. and Brian Ward:

  • Facts: Norampac and supervisor Brian Ward were charged under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act for failing to control emissions and maintain equipment.

  • Ruling: Both the company and individual manager were found liable.

  • Significance: Shows that individuals in positions of authority within corporations can be held criminally liable for environmental offenses.

• Breaker et al. v. The Queen:

  • Facts: A group sued over pollution affecting their health and property.

  • Issue: Whether citizens had standing to sue for environmental harm affecting the public.

  • Ruling: Allowed under public interest standing.

  • Significance: Paved the way for environmental advocacy and lawsuits brought by ordinary citizens or interest groups.

Major Environmental Incidents

• Love Canal (New York, 1978):

  • Facts: A neighborhood was built over a toxic chemical waste dump. Residents experienced high rates of illness, birth defects, and cancer.

  • Outcome: Led to federal legislation in the U.S. — the Superfund Act (CERCLA).

  • Significance: Demonstrated how poor environmental planning can have devastating public health effects.

• Walkerton Tragedy (Ontario, 2000):

  • Facts: E$. coli entered the town’s water supply due to negligence by local officials.

  • Outcome: 7 people died, 2,300+ got sick. A public inquiry revealed underfunding and a lack of regulation.

  • Significance: Triggered stricter drinking water regulations in Ontario and emphasized the importance of proactive regulation.

Global/Political Figures

• Augusto Pinochet:

  • Former Chilean dictator accused of environmental and human rights abuses.

  • His case shows how environmental destruction can be tied to authoritarian regimes and be prosecuted as a human rights violation.

• Lockerbie Bombing (1988):

  • A Pan Am flight exploded over Scotland due to a terrorist bombing.

  • Raised issues about aviation security and environmental aftermaths of air crashes.

• Guantanamo Bay Detainees:

  • Environmental controversies over waste disposal and land use, in addition to human rights concerns.

Environmental Law Principles & Key Terms

• Effluent:

  • Liquid waste (usually industrial/sewage) discharged into water.

  • Controlled by environmental protection acts.

• Dilution:

  • The outdated idea that pollution could be “solved” by spreading it out.

  • Rejected in modern law in favor of zero-discharge principles.

• Dangerous/Hazardous Substances:

  • Toxic materials regulated for storage, transport, and disposal due to their threat to ecosystems and health.

Legal Doctrines and Approaches

• Proactive vs. Reactive:

  • Proactive: Preventing damage (e.g., environmental assessments, early regulation).

  • Reactive: Responding after damage (e.g., lawsuits, cleanup orders).

• Precautionary Principle:

  • Take preventive action in the face of uncertainty. Better safe than sorry.

• Polluter Pays Principle:

  • Those responsible for pollution bear the cost of cleanup and restoration.

• Point Source Pollution:

  • Pollution from a single, identifiable source (e.g., a pipe, smokestack).

• Non-Point Source Pollution:

  • Diffuse sources, such as agricultural runoff, making regulation harder.

Other Key Terms

• Riparian Rights:

  • The rights of landowners to access and use water bodies that border their land.

  • These are limited by environmental regulations.

• Public Interest Standing:

  • Allows people or groups to bring lawsuits about environmental harm even if they are not personally affected.

• Strict Liability:

  • Legal responsibility even without proof of negligence or intent.

  • Crucial in environmental law.

Environmental Protection & War

• Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs):

  • Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Capable of causing widespread death and long-term environmental devastation.

  • Details:

  • Nuclear Weapons: Release immense energy through nuclear fission or fusion, causing immediate destruction and long-lasting radioactive contamination. Concerns include fallout, nuclear winter scenarios, and proliferation risks.

  • Chemical Weapons: Disperse toxic chemicals that can cause death, injury, or incapacitation. Examples include nerve agents (e.g., Sarin), blister agents (e.g., Mustard gas), and choking agents (e.g., Chlorine). The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits their development, production, stockpiling, and use.

  • Biological Weapons: Utilize pathogenic microorganisms or toxins to cause disease and death. Pose significant risks due to their potential for rapid spread and difficulty in detection. The Biological Weapons Convention prohibits their development, production, and stockpiling.

• Arms Control:

  • Treaties that limit the use and spread of destructive technologies.

  • Examples: Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Chemical Weapons Convention.

  • Aim: To reduce environmental damage from military conflicts.

  • Details:

  • Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): Aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament. Signatories agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist non-nuclear states in acquiring them. It also promotes peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

  • Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): Prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Requires destruction of existing stockpiles and monitoring of chemical industries to prevent diversion of chemicals for weapon production.

• Nuclear-Free Zones:

  • Regions banning nuclear weapons and facilities.

  • Examples: New Zealand, cities with anti-nuclear resolutions.

  • Details:

  • Established through treaties or declarations by countries in a specific region. Aim to prevent the deployment, storage, or transit of nuclear weapons within the zone. Help reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and promote regional security.

• Test Bans:

  • Example: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

  • Aim: Prevent radioactive contamination of land and water.

  • Details:

  • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT): Prohibits all nuclear explosions for military or civilian purposes. Aims to prevent the development of new nuclear weapons and improve the monitoring of existing ones. Has a global network of monitoring stations to detect violations.

Canadian Environmental Law Principles

• Sustainable Development (Brundtland Definition):

  • "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

  • Details:

  • Integrates environmental, social, and economic considerations into decision-making. Aims to balance short-term needs with long-term sustainability. Recognized as a guiding principle in Canadian environmental law and policy.

• Environmental Assessment (EA):

  • A legal requirement before major development projects (e.g., pipelines, dams).

  • Ensures stakeholders review environmental impacts (air, water, biodiversity).

  • Key legislation: Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

  • Details:

  • Involves a systematic evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. Considers alternatives and mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Provides opportunities for public participation and consultation.

  • Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA): Establishes the legal framework for environmental assessments in Canada. Requires federal authorities to conduct EA for projects with potential environmental effects.

Landmark Canadian Environmental Cases

• R. v. Imperial Oil Ltd.:

  • Facts: Imperial Oil polluted land with petroleum hydrocarbons; the government ordered a cleanup.

  • Issue: Could the company be forced to pay for cleaning contamination it caused?

  • Ruling: Yes, companies are responsible for remediating environmental damage they cause or contribute to.

  • Significance: Reinforced the polluter pays principle; affirmed governmental authority to enforce environmental cleanup.

  • Additional Details:

  • Emphasized the importance of holding companies accountable for environmental damage. Set a precedent for future cases involving pollution and remediation.

• R. v. The KVP Co. Ltd. (1973):

  • Facts: KVP paper mill discharged chemicals into a river, harming downstream landowners and the environment.

  • Issue: Could a company pollute if it had a permit, or was it strictly liable under common law?

  • Ruling: Company was liable despite operating under a license.

  • Significance: Introduced the concept of strict liability. If harm occurs, intent doesn’t matter; the polluter is liable.

  • Additional Details:

  • KVP case played a pivotal role in shaping environmental regulations in Canada. It highlighted the need for companies to take responsibility for their actions, regardless of permits.

• Gauthier v. Naneff (1977):

  • Facts: Gauthier claimed that Naneff improperly disposed of industrial waste, impacting their property.

  • Issue: Was the defendant negligent in waste disposal?

  • Ruling: Court found Naneff responsible due to a lack of care and environmental negligence.

  • Significance: Reinforced personal liability for improper waste disposal under civil and environmental law.

  • Additional Details:

  • Established a precedent for holding individuals accountable for improper waste disposal practices. Emphasized the duty of care in handling hazardous waste.

• Norampac Inc. and Brian Ward:

  • Facts: Norampac and supervisor Brian Ward were charged under Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act for failing to control emissions and maintain equipment.

  • Ruling: Both the company and individual manager were found liable.

  • Significance: Shows that individuals in positions of authority within corporations can be held criminally liable for environmental offenses.

  • Additional Details:

  • Important because it demonstrates the legal system's willingness to prosecute individuals as well as companies for environmental wrongdoings.

• Breaker et al. v. The Queen:

  • Facts: A group sued over pollution affecting their health and property.

  • Issue: Whether citizens had standing to sue for environmental harm affecting the public.

  • Ruling: Allowed under public interest standing.

  • Significance: Paved the way for environmental advocacy and lawsuits brought by ordinary citizens or interest groups.

  • Additional Details:

  • Extended the ability of citizens to engage in environmental protection through legal action.

Major Environmental Incidents

• Love Canal (New York, 1978):

  • Facts: A neighborhood was built over a toxic chemical waste dump. Residents experienced high rates of illness, birth defects, and cancer.

  • Outcome: Led to federal legislation in the U.S. — the Superfund Act (CERCLA).

  • Significance: Demonstrated how poor environmental planning can have devastating public health effects.

  • Additional Details:

  • The Superfund Act (CERCLA) provides a framework for cleaning up hazardous waste sites and holding responsible parties accountable.

• Walkerton Tragedy (Ontario, 2000):

  • Facts: E$. coli entered the town’s water supply due to negligence by local officials.

  • Outcome: 7 people died, 2,300+ got sick. A public inquiry revealed underfunding and a lack of regulation.

  • Significance: Triggered stricter drinking water regulations in Ontario and emphasized the importance of proactive regulation.

  • Additional Details:

  • The tragedy resulted in increased investment in water treatment infrastructure and enhanced monitoring and enforcement of drinking water standards.

Global/Political Figures

• Augusto Pinochet:

  • Former Chilean dictator accused of environmental and human rights abuses.

  • His case shows how environmental destruction can be tied to authoritarian regimes and be prosecuted as a human rights violation.

  • Additional Details:

  • Illustrates the intersection of environmental law, human rights, and international justice.

• Lockerbie Bombing (1988):

  • A Pan Am flight exploded over Scotland due to a terrorist bombing.

  • Raised issues about aviation security and environmental aftermaths of air crashes.

  • Additional Details:

  • Highlighted the environmental impacts associated with air crashes, including pollution from debris and fuel spills.

• Guantanamo Bay Detainees:

  • Environmental controversies over waste disposal and land use, in addition to human rights concerns.

  • Additional Details:

  • Showed the environmental considerations in military operations.

Environmental Law Principles & Key Terms

• Effluent:

  • Liquid waste (usually industrial/sewage) discharged into water.

  • Controlled by environmental protection acts.

  • Additional Details:

  • Regulations often require permits for effluent discharge.

• Dilution:

  • The outdated idea that pollution could be “solved” by spreading it out.

  • Rejected in modern law in favor of zero-discharge principles.

  • Additional Details:

  • Modern laws emphasize preventing pollution at the source rather than relying on dilution.

• Dangerous/Hazardous Substances:

  • Toxic materials regulated for storage, transport, and disposal due to their threat to ecosystems and health.

  • Additional Details:

  • Regulations cover a wide range of substances, including pesticides, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds.

Legal Doctrines and Approaches

• Proactive vs. Reactive:

  • Proactive: Preventing damage (e.g., environmental assessments, early regulation).

  • Reactive: Responding after damage (e.g., lawsuits, cleanup orders).

  • Additional Details:

  • Proactive approaches are generally more effective in protecting the environment and preventing costly remediation efforts.

• Precautionary Principle:

  • Take preventive action in the face of uncertainty. Better safe than sorry.

  • Additional Context:

  • This principle is often invoked when there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, even if there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm.

• Polluter Pays Principle:

  • Those responsible for pollution bear the cost of cleanup and restoration.

  • Additional Context:

  • Ensures that polluters are held accountable for the environmental damage they cause, incentivizing them to prevent pollution in the first place.

• Point Source Pollution:

  • Pollution from a single, identifiable source (e.g., a pipe, smokestack).

  • Additional Details:

  • Easier to regulate and control because the source of pollution is known.

• Non-Point Source Pollution:

  • Diffuse sources, such as agricultural runoff, making regulation harder.

  • Additional Details:

  • Requires broader management strategies, such as implementing best management practices in agriculture.

Other Key Terms

• Riparian Rights: