The Supreme Court gives reason to neighboring St. Lawrence Cement

The 2000 inconvenienced neighbors for years by dust, noise and odor from the plant St. Lawrence Cement win a complete victory, eleven years after the closure of the cement. The highest court in the land ruled Thursday that the residents of Beauport must share a sum of $ 15 million as compensation for any inconvenience suffered between 1991 and the plant closing in 1997. The decision Thursday by the Supreme Court puts an end to 15 years of legal battle, since the request for permission to take action lawsuit was filed on June 4 1993. The victory neighbors of the plant is complete because the highest court in the land back at the compensation decided by the Superior Court. In May 2003, the Superior Court ruled that St. Lawrence Cement, despite its efforts to exploit its plant in compliance with the standards had caused undue inconvenience to its neighbors. Disadvantages exceeding the limits of tolerance that neighbors should, ruled Judge Julie Dutil. The first trial neighbors divided into five zones, depending on their proximity to the plant. Thus, the closest neighbors were granted compensation of $ 15 950, while more distant were entitled to $ 1100. Dissatisfied with the decision, the company turned to the Court of Appeal, which once again gave reason to neighbors, but reduced the compensation. The total was reduced to $ 12 million, or 11 for $ 000 closest neighbors, and $ 935 for the most distant. Still unsatisfied, the company asked the highest court in the country to decide. What he did Thursday in restoring the neighboring $ 15 million granted by the Superior Court. Before this court, 62 witnesses have told the disadvantages suffered by the fallout of the cement dust. Unable to sit outside and obligation to repaint the outside of the residence every year, so dust was causing damage. Claude Cochrane, a representative of the group, with Huguette Barrette, filed 275 photos illustrating the damage. The court also saw 14 hours of videotape captured by John Paul Tremblay, another neighbor. Neighborly relations changed The Supreme Court's decision to change the future neighborly relations between citizens and businesses with the interpretation she has just given an article of the Civil Code of Quebec. This decision gives a new weapon to citizens who live disadvantages excessive analysis Me Line Magnan, office of Mr. Jacques Larochelle, who successfully defended the citizens of Beauport. Even if it does not commit misconduct, a company may still be liable for any inconvenience it causes abnormal. For an ordinary citizen, proving that a company has committed a fault can be very difficult to say Me Magnan. "The citizen does not have access to all documents of the company." In the future, a citizen can be successful if it demonstrates it has suffered damage, drawbacks that are not acceptable in society. "It is easier to prove that you lived to prove that the fault of the other," adds Mr. Magnan. The lawyer is expected that companies make known their concerns in the coming days. But it does not provide a proliferation of prosecution. The burden of demonstrating abnormal disadvantages based on the shoulders of citizens, and it is not simple, she concludes.