Editing Port Colborne (section)

===Environmental concerns===
Emissions from [[Inco|Inco's]] base metal refinery, closed in 1984, resulted in soils contaminated with concentrations of nickel, copper and cobalt above the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's "soil remediation criteria."<ref name="ene.gov.on.ca">[http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/portcolborne/index.htm Government of Ontario, Canada / Gouvernement de l'Ontario, Canada]</ref> However, two studies, one in 1997 and another in 1999 found "[no] adverse health effects which may have resulted from environmental exposures."<ref name="ene.gov.on.ca"/>  After a series of public meetings between the City, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and Inco, it was decided to perform a Community-Based Risk Assessment, a process designed to determine whether the contamination poses a threat to the current, past, or future residents of Port Colborne, and what Inco must do to clean up the contaminated areas.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://city.portcolborne.on.ca/cityhall/committees/details.cfm?recordid=61|title=City of Port Colborne|access-date=July 31, 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061007144511/http://city.portcolborne.on.ca/cityhall/committees/details.cfm?recordid=61|archive-date=October 7, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Some residents launched a [[Class action|Class-Action Lawsuit]] against Inco in 2001<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jatam.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=44&PHPSESSID=b59205dabaf7435ab6163bc44aee94b0|title=English - JATAM|website=www.jatam.org|access-date=July 31, 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927195325/http://www.jatam.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=255&Itemid=44&PHPSESSID=b59205dabaf7435ab6163bc44aee94b0|archive-date=September 27, 2007|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/home.aspx|title=Koskie Minsky LLP|access-date=July 31, 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061210204633/http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/home.aspx|archive-date=December 10, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref> seeking $750 million in damages to health, property value, and quality-of-life. Although this suit failed to be certified in 2002,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/docs/reasons_for_decision_jnordheimer_dated_15jul02.pdf|title=Koskie Minsky LLP|access-date=July 31, 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070809133336/http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/docs/reasons_for_decision_jnordheimer_dated_15jul02.pdf|archive-date=August 9, 2007|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.elc.ab.ca/pages/Publications/PreviousIssue.aspx?id=332|title=Trouble for Toxic Torts as Class Actions |access-date=July 31, 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-date=October 4, 2013|df=mdy-all |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004232143/http://www.elc.ab.ca/pages/Publications/PreviousIssue.aspx?id=332 }}</ref> it was subsequently modified to limit the class, and focus solely on devaluation of property<ref>[http://www.hazmatmag.com/posted_documents/pdf/Pearson.pdf hazmatmag summary as at February 2004] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120624100748/http://www.hazmatmag.com/posted_documents/pdf/Pearson.pdf |date=June 24, 2012 }}</ref> and was certified on appeal on November 18, 2005.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/docs/REASONS_NOV1805_McMURTRY_ROSENBERG_GILLESE.pdf|title=Koskie Minsky LLP|access-date=July 31, 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061208170859/http://www.koskieminsky.com/client_links/Inco/docs/REASONS_NOV1805_McMURTRY_ROSENBERG_GILLESE.pdf|archive-date=December 8, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://canlii.ca/t/1m147|title=Pearson v. Inco Ltd., 2005 CanLII 42474 (ON CA)|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref>  A timeline of the case has been written from the point of view of the plaintiffs.<ref name=kmtimeline>{{cite web|url=http://koskieminsky.com/Case-Central/Overview/Status-Of-Case/?rid=82|title=Smith v. Inco Ltd. - Koskie Minsky LLP|access-date=July 31, 2017|archive-date=October 4, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131004231800/http://koskieminsky.com/Case-Central/Overview/Status-Of-Case/?rid=82|url-status=dead}}</ref>

On July 6, 2010, the [[Ontario Supreme Court]] sided with the residents and awarded more than 7,000 households in Port Colborne a total of $36 million. Households in the Rodney Street area, in the shadow of the nickel refinery, were each awarded $23,000 while those living on the east and west sides of Port Colborne were each awarded $9,000 and $2,500 respectively.<ref name="stcatharinesstandard.ca">{{cite web|url=http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2698114|title=Vale appeals $36-million judgment|website=St. Catharines Standard|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref> Vale{{who|date=July 2021}} appealed the ruling to the [[Ontario Court of Appeal]], which found in 2010 that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, raising the legal burden of proof but not invalidating [[Rylands v Fletcher]] as precedent law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/57226/ontario-court-of-appeal-overturns-trial-decision-in-smith-v-inco|title=Ontario Court of Appeal overturns trial decision in Smith v Inco|website=www.nortonrosefulbright.com|access-date=July 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161201020408/http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/57226/ontario-court-of-appeal-overturns-trial-decision-in-smith-v-inco|archive-date=December 1, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.weirfoulds.com/case-law-update-smith-v-inco-limited|title=Case Law Update: Smith v Inco Limited, WeirFoulds|website=www.weirfoulds.com|date=October 20, 2011|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=07c576cc-3956-437d-8c06-6dbacec797ce|title=No Harm, No Nuisance - The Ontario Court of Appeal Lays Out What Will, and Will Not, Fly in Proving Nuisance: Smith v. Inco Limited - Lexology|first=Miller Thomson LLP-Tamara|last=Farber|date=November 2011|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref>  In April 2012 the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] sided with Vale and denied the residents the awarded compensation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/who-pays-when-your-well-sucked-dry-and-your-home-contaminated/11214|title=Who pays when your well is sucked dry and your home is contaminated?|website=halifax.mediacoop.ca|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gowlings.com/KnowledgeCentre/article.asp?pubID=2673|title=Supreme Court Will Not Hear Appeal of Smith v. Inco|access-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref>  Court costs in the amount of CAD$1,766,000 were awarded the defendant by Henderson, J.<ref name=kmtimeline/>