Lynda Margaret Collins

La contribution appréciable au risque dans le droit Canadien de la responsabilité délictuelle liée aux substances toxiques (Material Contribution to Risk in the Canadian Law of Toxic Torts)

French Abstract: La causalite est reconnue comme etant le plus grand obstacle a l’indemnisation des demandeurs dans les actions delictuelles portant sur une substance toxique au Canada (et ailleurs). L’incertitude scientifique entourant les questions de la causalite generique et de la causalite specifique a souvent fait obstacle a l’indemnisation des demandeurs, meme dans les cas ou les defendeurs les avaient par negligence exposes a un risque toxique. Trois types d’incertitude ont ete constates : le demandeur indetermine (lorsque nous savons que le defendeur a cause un prejudice a une certaine partie d’une population particuliere, mais qu’aucune personne en particulier ne peut etablir un lien de causalite); le defendeur indetermine (lorsque nous savons qu’un groupe de defendeurs a cause un prejudice a un ou plusieurs demandeurs particuliers, mais que chacun des defendeurs peut echapper a toute responsabilite en montrant l’autre du doigt); et le prejudice indetermine (lorsque les demandeurs ont ete exposes a un risque qui peut ou non se materialiser en prejudice). Au Canada, il n’existe aucune indemnisation pour l’exposition a un risque, sauf si celle-ci cree un prejudice psychiatrique mesurable. Le probleme du demandeur indetermine persiste, ce qui mene a la sous-dissuasion des prejudices lies a une substance toxique et a la sous indemnisation des demandeurs leses. Cependant, la Cour supreme du Canada a regle le probleme du defendeur indetermine pour les demandeurs canadiens. Dans l’arret Clements c. Clements, en s’inspirant des theories britanniques et americaines sur la responsabilite collective, la Cour a adopte un critere uniquement canadien de contribution appreciable au risque comme approximation de la preuve d’un lien de causalite. Le present article fait valoir que le critere enonce dans l’arret Clements est un point de depart prometteur pour la reforme de la causalite au Canada, mais qu’il ne va pas assez loin pour encourager la divulgation de renseignements et la prudence dans la fabrication et la distribution de produits chimiques et polluants.English Abstract: Causation is recognized as one of the leading barriers to recover for plaintiffs in toxic tort actions in Canada and throughout the common law world. Scientific uncertainty surrounding questions of both generic and specific causation often precludes recovery, even in cases where the defendant has negligently exposed the plaintiff to a toxic risk. Three kinds of uncertainty have been recognized: plaintiff indeterminacy, defendant indeterminacy and the phenomenon of indeterminate harm, or recovery for risk alone. In Canada, plaintiffs cannot recover for mere risk exposure, unless it results in serious psychiatric harm. The problem of plaintiff indeterminacy (where it can be shown that the defendant has harmed someone within an exposed population but no single individual can prove causation) persists in Canada, resulting in under deterrence of toxic wrongdoing and under compensation of injured victims. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has solved the problem of the indeterminate defendant, or the scenario in which we know that a group of defendants has harmed a plaintiff but it is impossible to single out one ore more responsible party because each can point the finger at the others. Taking inspiration from UK and US authority, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a uniquely Canadian approach to the problem of defendant indeterminacy - the test of material contribution to risk. This article argues that material contribution to risk as articulated in Clements is a promising starting point for causation reform in Canadian toxic tort law but does not go far enough to encourage precaution in the production and dissemination of toxic substances and the protection of public health.

The United Nations, human rights and the environment

In the past five years, the ‘environmental rights revolution’ reached an apex when two states in Latin America created constitutional rights for nature itself. This development represents the culmination or extension of a decades-long process of codification of environmental rights for humans in more than 90 national constitutions. Constitutional environmental rights have made real, measurable, and substantial impacts on domestic legislation, litigation and, most importantly, environmental performance. In the rise of environmental human rights, it would seem at first blush that individual nation-states have played a dominant role. Regional human rights institutions, influential scholarship and ambitious civil society activism have also made major contributions to the evolution of environmental human rights. The casual observer might reasonably believe that the important efforts of non-United Nations (UN) actors have eclipsed the role of the UN in this field. However, a close examination of the history and progression of environmental human rights throughout the world demonstrates that the UN has played a crucial role in both catalyzing and consolidating the recognition of human rights in the environment. This chapter will survey the UN’s involvement in the emergence of environmental human rights in the global legal order, and will make proposals for future UN action in this area. In particular, the author suggests that the UN should continue to emphasize the necessity of environmental protection in the stewardship of all human rights, while providing guidance on the existence and content of the free-standing right to a healthy environment. A General Assembly resolution clearly recognizing the right to environment would provide a solid foundation on which to begin the process of negotiating a specific binding multi-lateral treaty committing states to respect, protect and promote environmental human rights on all levels.