Question

682 PART 6 Special Legal Rights and Relationships CASE 2 Haber Wood Products Ltd. had a permit from the pro- vincial government to extract water from a nearby river for manufacturing purposes. It was also permitted to discharge the water, which now contained harmless chemicals, into the river. The discharge was continu- ously monitored for other contaminants to ensure that the discharge only contained the permitted harmless chemicals. MD Manufacturing Inc. also had a permit to draw water from the river, and under its permit it was entitled to discharge certain non-poisonous chemicals into the river. The discharge water was also monitored While the chemical discharge from each plant was harmless, and the combination was non-toxic humans, higher concentrations of the resulting mixture were toxic to fish. Downstream from the two plants Olsen operated a fish hatchery and fish farm. One da he discovered his entire stock of fish dead or near death. He immediately contacted the government mini try to determine the cause of his loss. Discuss, the issues raised in this case. How would Hability (if any) for Olsen's loss be determined? CASE 3

Answer 1

This is a case of negative externality caused by discharge of chemicals into the river water which is toxic to fish. The resultant discharge has caused the death or near death of entire stock of fish of Olsen, so Olsen can sue MD Manufacturing Inc which has discharged chemicals into the river which had ultimately caused the death of the fish.

Liability for Olsen's loss can be determined based on the death of the fish caused due to the discharge of chemicals into the river water.