• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>HazMat management >Polluter pay and retroactivity: What's fair?
【24h】

Polluter pay and retroactivity: What's fair?

机译：污染者的工资和追溯力：公平吗？

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

Is it fair and just to hold organizations liable today for the consequences of lawful actions many decades ago? Two Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the last two years seem to be saying, "Yes". In October 2003, the court decided Quebec v. Imperial Oil. This case dealt with a former petroleum refinery that Imperial Oil used for SO years, then sold "as is" in 1979. Developers cleaned the property up, twice, to provincial government satisfaction and then built a subdivision on it. Years later, soil in the subdivision was found to exceed current criteria and the residents sued. The Quebec Ministry of Environment was brought into the lawsuit and responded (using its powers under the Environmental Quality Act) by ordering Imperial to prepare a remedial plan.
机译：使组织今天对数十年前合法行动的后果承担责任是否公平公正？在过去两年中，加拿大最高法院的两个判决似乎都说“是”。 2003年10月，法院裁定Quebec诉Imperial Oil案。此案涉及一家帝国石油公司使用了多年的前石油精炼厂，然后在1979年“原样”出售。开发商两次清理财产，以使省政府满意，然后在其上进行了细分。几年后，该分区的土壤被发现超过了当前标准，居民起诉了。魁北克环境部被提起诉讼，并（命令其行使《环境质量法》所赋予的权力）作出回应，命令帝国帝国制定一项补救计划。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 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