...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Boart Longyear Inc. v. Mudjatik Enterprises Inc.
【24h】

Boart Longyear Inc. v. Mudjatik Enterprises Inc.

机译：Boart Longyear Inc.诉Mudjatik Enterprises Inc.。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Environmental law - Liability for environmental harm - Practice and procedure - Miscellaneous - Plaintiff brought action for damage to mining equipment and business losses resulting from flood - Limitations Act provided for two-year limitation period - Plaintiff brought application to amend statement of claim to add new cause of action based on s. 15 of Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002 (EMPA), which had limitation period of six years - In dismissing application, chambers judge found that proposed amendment would result in claim that disclosed no reasonable cause of action - Plaintiff appealed - Appeal dismissed - Narrowing scope of s. 15 of EMPA by permitting claims found to be in public interest may be too limiting - It was not necessary to add word "natural" to definition of environment in order to resolve appeal - Chambers judge referred to "natural environment", but if one returned to pleadings, it could be said unequivocally that plaintiff had not alleged adverse effect on environment or any harm to human health, or even that there may be such adverse effect or harm - Proposed amendment plainly and obviously would fail - Plaintiffs pleadings did not support claim under s. 15(3)(a)(i) of EMPA - Plaintiff was not entitled to rely on possibility that new facts could turn up as case progressed - Claim was neither novel nor arguable.
机译：环境法-环境损害赔偿责任-实践和程序-杂项-原告提起诉讼以赔偿采矿设备损坏和洪水造成的商业损失-时效法规定了两年的时效期限-原告提起了修改权利要求书的申请以增加新的基于的原因。 2002年《环境管理与保护法》（EMPA）第15条，有效期为6年-驳回申请时，内阁法官认为，拟议的修正案将导致声称未披露合理诉讼因由的索赔-原告提出上诉-上诉被驳回-缩小范围范围。 EMPA第15条通过允许认定符合公共利益的主张可能太过局限-不必在环境定义中添加“自然”一词来解决上诉-分庭法官提到“自然环境”，但如果有人返回对于书状，可以毫不含糊地说原告没有声称对环境有不利影响或对人体健康有任何危害，甚至可能有这样的不利影响或危害-拟议的修正案显然会失败-原告的书状不支持主张根据s。 EMPA第15（3）（a）（i）条-原告无权依靠随着案件的进展而出现新事实的可能性-索赔既不新颖也不存在争议。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号