Environmental Commissioner Granted Intervenor Status in Precedent-Setting Case before Supreme Court
(Toronto, March 12, 2001) - Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller announced today that his office will be allowed to intervene in a precedent-setting case, John Hollick v. The City of Toronto, coming before the Supreme Court of Canada in mid-June. Launched on behalf of 30,000 residents who live near the city-owned Keele Valley Landfill, the case alleges that the dump is a public nuisance that is harming both the environment and the health of nearby residents. On March 1, 2001, the Supreme Court granted the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) intervenor status in the case in support of the public nuisance provisions of Ontario’s Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR).
“The Supreme Court’s decision in this case gives my office our first opportunity to intervene as a friend of the court to promote and enhance the environmental rights set out in the Environmental Bill of Rights,” said Commissioner Miller. “We want to assist the Court in their understanding of these EBR rights. We also want to make sure the interpretation of this legislation is consistent with the province’s broader strategy of protecting, conserving and restoring the natural environment.”
The Keele Valley Landfill, owned and operated by the City of Toronto since 1983, is one of the largest waste disposal sites in Canada, covering about 245 acres, with a buffer area of over 650 acres. In the class action suit, local resident John Hollick argues that the dump has caused excessive noise, odours, harmful emissions and problems with seagull droppings and that the health of members of the community has suffered since the dump was constructed. As a result, Hollick argues, he and other residents should be awarded compensation and an injunction to stop all activity at the dump.
The ECO decided to intervene in the action after the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the residents’ complaints were not similar enough and were spread over too many years to constitute a common cause, and that this type of public nuisance action was “fundamentally inappropriate” to be certified as a class action. Section 103 of the Environmental Bill of Rights gives Ontarians the right to sue for damages for direct economic loss or personal injury caused by a public nuisance causing environmental harm.
“Our intent is not to take a position on the specifics of the case,” said Miller. “However, we do have serious concerns about the implications of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s reasoning in this decision. The ECO has a direct interest in ensuring that the EBR is interpreted in a way that is consistent the intentions of the framers of the legislation, who believed strongly in the public’s right to sue for damages because of a public nuisance causing environmental harm.”
The ECO intends to make submissions to the Supreme Court regarding the role of class actions in protecting the environment, the legal threshold for bringing such class actions, and the appropriate test the Court should apply when considering Section 103 of the EBR in conjunction with the requirements of the Class Proceedings Act. The Supreme Court will hear the case on June 18, 2001.
For more information, contact:
Liz Guccione, Communications Coordinator
Tel: (416) 325-3371
E-mail:
Or call our toll-free public inquiry line at 1-800-701-6454.