Dan Caldarone is the new general counsel at Second Cup Ltd.

The Second Cup Ltd. has a new general counsel effective today as Dan Caldarone leaves the in-house department at Cara Operations Ltd. to join the Canadian-owned specialty coffee company.

Caldarone will serve as general counsel, corporate secretary, and vice president of human resources for the company.

Second Cup is Canada’s largest specialty coffee café franchisor and retailer with 359 cafés operating under the trade name Second Cup in Canada. All but 10 of those stores are franchised in what is a highly competitive coffee market.

Caldarone joined Cara Operations in 2008. Cara is the owner and franchisor of restaurant brands including Swiss Chalet, Harvey’s, Kelsey’s, Montana’s, and Milestones.

Prior to going in-house at Cara, Caldarone was a partner at Aird & Berlis LLP. His primarily focus at the law firm was business and franchise law.

He says he was drawn to the position at Second Cup not only because it was a step up into the general counsel role but also because it puts him at the executive management table.

“At Second Cup, there is a senior management team of seven and the general counsel is one of the people that make up the senior management team, so for me it’s not only a step up into a general counsel role but also a step into the executive management team,” he says.

Given his background in franchise law, Caldarone says he’s looking forward to dealing with all of the franchisor partners the company has across the country. He also welcomes the challenge of working in the highly competitive coffee market.

“It will be a challenge to get up to speed and get familiar with all the franchise partners,” he says.

Caldarone is a member of the Ontario Bar Association’s franchise law section executive committee and the Canadian Franchise Association’s legal and legislative committee.

Queen’s University has indicated it will be signing a letter of intent to accept the model licence agreed on between the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and Access Copyright. The non-binding letter of intent, due by today, will allow the university more time to consider whether to accept the model licence.

Queen’s, as well as many other Canadian universities, has operated without a licence since the end of December 2010. In its place, Access Copyright proposed to the Copyright Board of Canada a tariff that is still under consideration. In August 2011, Kingston, Ont.-based Queen’s opted out of an interim tariff imposed by the Copyright Board.

Earlier this year Access Copyright recently signed new copyright agreements with the University of Toronto and Western University despite the fact many post-secondary institutions said last summer they were walking away from the tariff in place with the collective. They claimed they already license the works or could rely on fair dealing for research, private study, and eventually education.

“The tariff proposed by Access Copyright raised many concerns that Queen’s shared with other universities. Our concerns included issues relating to scope, cost, and privacy,” said Alan Harrison, provost and vice principal, academic, in a statement yesterday.

Universities have been reviewing the new model licence with those concerns in mind.

Queen’s says signing the licence would protect the university from the imposition of a tariff and associated monitoring practices, which could be more onerous. (Photo: Shutterstock)

In a statement on the Queen’s web site, it states: “Any survey of an institution’s copying under the provision of this licence would respect the principles of academic freedom, would not extend to faculty emails or interactive portions of learning management systems, and would acknowledge each institution’s collective agreements.”

The university has received contingent approval from its board of trustees to charge a fee of up to $22.50 per full-time equivalent student, in the event the university does sign the agreement. The university will pay the difference between the licence’s proposed $26 per FTE charge and any student fee imposed.

On April 16 the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada reached an agreement with Access Copyright having negotiated the model licence that will allow universities to reproduce copyright-protected materials in both print and digital formats.

“We believe that this negotiated agreement provides a successful outcome for universities, their students, and faculty,” said AUCC president Paul Davidson. “It provides long-term certainty on price, and access to a new range of digital materials. Most importantly, the agreement respects the principles of academic freedom and privacy that are important to universities, and ensures that the administrative burden on institutions is minimized.”

Access Copyright’s executive director Maureen Cavan said, “We are pleased to have negotiated this licence with the AUCC. The licence provides easy, legal access to copyright-protected works for students, professors and staff, in a simple, fast and cost-efficient manner.”

The model licence will see institutions pay Access Copyright a royalty of $26 per FTE student annually. This royalty includes what used to be a separate 10-cents-per-page royalty for coursepack copying, so there will no longer be a separate royalty for such copying.

The agreement will be in place until Dec. 31, 2015 and will renew automatically for one-year terms during which any party can cancel or request to renegotiate the agreement.

Over the course of the next six months, a survey will be designed to gather reliable bibliographic and volume of usage data to allow Access Copyright to make fair distribution of royalties to its affiliates and to assist in establishing appropriate future licence rates.

Deloitte has withdrawn as a signatory to A Call to Action Canada, the organization working to promote diversity in the legal profession.

Deloitte’s Ken Fredeen says the decision is all about resources and time.

At its fourth annual conference in Toronto today, co-founder Joy Casey announced that Deloitte and it’s general counsel in Canada, Ken Fredeen had withdrawn their support from ACTAC, but would remain as members of Legal Leaders for Diversity an organization of in-house counsel also promoting diversity in the legal departments of some of the largest corporations in the country. Fredeen is a co-founder of Legal Leaders for Diversity Canada.

Deloitte signed on with ACTAC in February 2010. To date there are 11 signatories to its mission statement. Meanwhile, Legal Leaders for Diversity now has 60 general counsel as members after one year.

“Ken has indicated he is very committed to Legal Leaders for Diversity and it is a question of priorities,” says Casey. “The decision of Deloitte to withdraw is unfortunate, and a little hard to understand.”

Phebe Neely Ciulla, senior manager, Deloitte North American Financial Advisory LLC was to be a featured speaker at the conference today, but withdrew as a result of Deloitte ending its membership with ACTAC.

Casey notes that unlike ACTAC’s mission statement, Legal Leaders for Diversity doesn’t stipulate consequences for law firms that don’t demonstrate a dedication to diversity.

As part of its mission statement that signatories sign, A Call to Action requires in-house counsel to: “. . . pledge to make decisions regarding which law firms represent our companies based in significant part on the diversity performance of the firms.” It also states that, “We intend to look for opportunities to direct work to firms which are controlled by, or have a substantial number of, partners who are women or minorities.”

Finally, the mission statement stipulates, “We further intend to end or limit our relationships with firms whose performance consistently evidences a lack of meaningful interest in being diverse.”

Fredeen says the decision is all about resources and time and not about ACTAC’s mandate to hold firms more accountable to diversity initiatives. “I and Deloitte have limited time and resources. I have never just lent my name to something, rather, when I commit I give it my all,” he said when contacted by Canadian Lawyer InHouse.

“The LLD approach has always been inclusive, meaning that we see the issue of a more inclusive legal profession to be one of co-operating and working together,” says Fredeen. “We have elevated the importance of diversity to lawyers and law firms. A natural consequence will be more business. The approaches of the LLD and ACTAC are different, but I will let others determine which approach has been more successful.”

It seems the legal department at CBC is sharing in the pain of budget cuts as senior legal counsel Daniel Henry’s position with the national broadcaster has been eliminated.

Daniel Henry in a 2005 file photo.

After more than 34 years with CBC/Radio-Canada it was announced this week that Henry is retiring to pursue other opportunities.

An internal statement released by the CBC states: “One of the difficult decisions we had to make under the Deficit Reduction Action Plan was to eliminate Daniel Henry’s position. He will remain with us until the end of June to ensure an orderly transfer of his files.”

In his years at CBC, Henry assisted the broadcaster at all levels across Canada, from the studio to the president, in all services, including news, sports, and entertainment, and in all support services, from engineering to business affairs and sales. He has worked closely with most of CBC’s national and regional programs, on radio, television and in digital media.

He is known for his advocacy for cameras in court, and was involved in many cases of significance in media law, including Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., the decision that overturned the ban on broadcasting CBC’s film The Boys of St. Vincent. The judgment is considered one of the most important rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada on free expression under the Charter.

“All these years, Daniel has personified freedom of the media and the public’s right to know. He has been a staunch supporter and advocate for public broadcasting in promoting those rights. His commitment and devotion have made Daniel a lawyer respected throughout CBC/Radio-Canada and the legal community across the country,” said Maryse Bertrand, vice president, real estate, legal services and general counsel, in the internal statement.

CBC/Radio-Canada’s legal services in Toronto will now consist of 35-year veteran Michael Hughes, supported by Sean Moreman and Anne Ko, and with the rest of the media law team in Ottawa and Montreal.

Calls to Henry by Canadian Lawyer InHouse were not returned.

If passed, changes outlined in an amendment to B.C’s Legal Profession Act will expand the law society’s ability to suspend or disbar lawyers guilty of serious criminal offences and boost fines for misconduct.

Amendments to B.C.'s Legal Profession Act will expand the law society’s ability to suspend or disbar lawyers guilty of serious criminal offences and boost fines for misconduct.

Yesterday, the provincial government of British Columbia tabled bill 40, the “legal profession amendment act, 2012 for first reading.

The legislation was requested by the Law Society of British Columbia, which wanted more authority to investigate disputes and act on concerns about a lawyer’s dealings with their clients.

Maximum fines for lawyers found guilty of misconduct would increase to $50,000 from $20,000. The society would also be able to make rules to protect private electronic records during investigations of lawyers’ conduct.

As well, law firms would be regulated directly by the society, enabling the society to deal with a broader range of concerns, such as a firm’s accounting policies or supervisory practices for articling students.

B.C. Minister of Justice and Attorney General Shirley Bond introduced the bill April 30.

“The public needs to be confident that lawyers are acting in their best interests and that if they have serious, justifiable concerns about a lawyer’s conduct, the law society will investigate,” Bond said. “These changes give the society more authority to take measures to protect the public on those occasions when substantiated complaints arise.”

The act was passed in 1998 and since that time, regulatory best practices have changed. If passed, the law society says the proposed amendments will provide for better powers to regulate the profession in the public interest.

“The law society is pleased that we will soon be able to operate with up-to-date legislation that will allow us to more effectively regulate the legal profession and protect the public,” said LSBC president Bruce LeRose in a press release.

The changes, which in some cases will tweak the current system, will serve to enhance accountability to the public, streamline process and strengthen the disciplinary powers of the law society, says Dan Bennett, a partner with Bull Housser & Tupper LLP in Vancouver

“I see the big change is really recognizing and strengthening the public interest and involving more non-lawyers in the process,” says Bennett.

With respect to how the law society deals with Canadian lawyers convicted of serious crimes outside of Canada, Bennett says the amendment will help speed the process.

“It’s just a way to make a more summary and immediate process because under the current system, if convicted outside Canada, you still have to re-prove all of the elements here which is cumbersome and takes time. This is streamlining the process to be more responsive and deal with matters quicker,” says Bennett.

Other amendments include:

• An updated mandate that strengthens the commitment of the law society to the protection of the public interest in the administration of justice.
• Decisions of law society hearing panels will be subject to review by a board that will include non-lawyers.
• The law society will have the authority to suspend a lawyer under investigation or impose conditions on the lawyer’s practice.
• The ability to require people to answer questions and produce records in the course of an investigation into a lawyer’s conduct.
• The law society will be able to suspend or disbar lawyers convicted of serious crimes, including those committed outside Canada, without a full hearing.
• The elected board of governors, not all lawyers, will set the annual fees paid by lawyers to fund the law society.
• Where necessary to protect the public, the society would be able to impose an emergency suspension or practice conditions or require a lawyer to undergo a medical examination.
• The legislation would clarify that lawyers are entitled to legal counsel throughout disciplinary hearings, investigations or practice reviews and require the law society’s approval before resigning from the society in the midst of these procedures.

Update: 2:57 pm with comments from B.C. lawyers.

Transparency will trump dark orders in the future as Canadian regulators push forward with a new framework to handle dark pools of trade orders from institutions.

A new regulatory framework for the use of dark orders will be in place this fall. (Photo: Mark Blinch/Reuters)

The Canadian Securities Administrators and the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada have announced they are implementing a new regulatory framework for the use of orders entered without pre-trade transparency, known as dark orders.

To implement the framework, amendments have been made to National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation and to the Universal Market Integrity Rules, approved by the CSA on March 30. The rules will be effective Oct. 10, 2012.

The framework involves the following key messages:

• visible order priority: visible orders will have execution priority over dark orders on the same marketplace at the same price;
• meaningful price improvement: in order to trade with a dark order, smaller orders must receive a minimum level of price improvement, which is defined as one trading increment or half a trading increment for securities with a bid-ask spread of one trading increment; and
• minimum size: IIROC has the ability to designate a minimum size for dark orders. It is not doing so at this time, but the CSA and IIROC will monitor market developments to consider whether it should implement a minimum size.

The UMIR provisions will introduce a new regulatory approach to safeguard the price discovery process in Canadian equity markets and recognizes the increasing use of dark liquidity and balances displayed and dark liquidity for healthy price discovery, said Susan Wolburgh Jenah, IIROC president and chief executive officer in a statement.

“These proposals are intended to ensure Canadian equity markets continue to evolve in a fair and competitive manner that strengthens market integrity and investor protection.”

The initiative follows consultations with industry and stakeholders that began in 2009. The rules are designed to enable institutional traders to continue to execute large orders with minimal market impact, while ensuring investors with smaller orders receive meaningful price improvement when they trade with dark orders.

“We never had dark orders for the longest time but institutions sometimes had trouble executing their large orders because they figured everyone was always talking about them,” says Simon Romano, of Stikeman Elliott LLP, who suggests the new rules are probably a good thing for retail but not for institutions.

“When the big guys would tell their broker they want to sell one million shares and then they would go looking for buyers it leaks out and the market goes down because there is greater supply. So the theory of dark orders was to let it interact quietly and not show the big volume orders that could be price raising or lowering. In concept it’s a little troubling all of this happens in the dark,” says Romano.

The new framework allows for regulation of minimum sizes of large orders in the future.

“If they think it’s starting to impact the retail market it means they can put a threshold on it and it gives them a regulatory tool they didn’t have before,” says Romano.

Over time the framework is probably intended to discourage a greater move toward dark orders.

“With the threat of being able to regulate it and put a minimum size on it means people shouldn’t develop their whole structures to move baby orders to the dark side,” he adds.

The new rules allow exemptions for trades that have a value of more than $100,000. But for smaller trades, the new framework only allows dark trades in cases where one of the party finds a meaningfully better price than “light” trades available on the open market.

The rules will require light orders take priority over dark orders at the same marketplace, at the same price.

“To me it’s not interesting as a policy matter, it’s these rules about when retail orders get in the door and forcing big orders to interact with retail orders — in some ways it’s a very socialist system,” says Romano.

“If you have an order out there for 100 orders of one of the big banks and all these big guys are trading around you and they want to do a $100,000 order and they don’t want their order broken up but the law says your order gets to break it up because your price is a little better. It’s kind of sharing the wealth with the little people.”

Combined, dark liquidity makes up about five per cent of the total equity trading market share in Canada. Dark trading in Canada reached US$12.99 billion in March, the highest total ever recorded and over double the amount recorded in the same period last year, according to figures from Thomson Reuters.

Canadian in-house counsel say their organizations value them most for providing risk management, followed by regulatory compliance advice and controlling external costs, according to a recent survey.

(Source: 2012 In-House Counsel Barometer)

The 2012 In-House Counsel Barometer survey conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion and sponsored by Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg was presented yesterday in Montreal during the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association’s national spring conference.

The survey, completed by 411 Canadian in-house counsel, shows that providing value as in-house counsel is closely tied to managing or reducing risk with 84 per cent of participants citing risk management, followed by ensuring regulatory compliance (48 per cent), and controlling costs of external counsel (44 per cent) as the top ways they provide value in their organization.

The majority of in-house counsel taking part in the survey also say they feel the work they do is valued in their organization.

Participants were asked to indicate whether they feel the work they do is valued within their organization and 93 per cent said they feel they either valued or highly valued with an additional 28 per cent feeling they are moderately valued within their organization.

The majority of those surveyed — 82 per cent — who work for publicly traded companies reported that they work in an environment with strong support from management. Also, 68 per cent believe their organization would like to bring more work inside the organization, rather than outsource. However, three in 10 feel the organization they work for does not make appropriate use of their role.

A majority — 64 per cent — feels they often have internal clients who act without seeking legal advice, up 11 points from 2011.

The survey did show there was no connection between the type of law practised and whether an in-house counsel felt valued.

“There appears to be no relationship between the type of law you practice and feeling valued, it has more to do with the company you work for,” said Andrew Grenville, chief legal officer with Angus Reid Public Opinion who presented the findings.

The survey also revealed that key performance indicators are in place for two in five in-house counsel. Reviews of the implementation of KPIs for in-house counsel remain mixed, as they were in last year’s survey. Although the majority of in-house counsel working for an organization that has KPIs in place report they help prove the value of in-house counsel (58 per cent), a majority also feels KPIs are good in theory, but poor in practice (62 per cent). This is on par with findings from 2011, when KPIs were first evaluated.

In terms of hours worked by in-house counsel in Canada, those working for a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company work, on average, the most hours per week at 49 hours, followed closely by those who work for a public company at 48 hours or private company at 47 hours. In-house counsel working for not-for-profit organizations work an average of 45 hours, while those working in government work the fewest of all at 44 hours.

The hours in-house counsel are putting in apparently don’t allow for longer-term planning and pose the biggest challenge for them. New to the survey for 2012, participants were asked to rank eight challenges their profession faces. A majority (65 per cent) said the day-to-day workload leaves little time for “big picture thinking” or the development of initiatives which would benefit the organization as a whole.

The “lack of simple and inexpensive matter management software tools for smaller law departments” was identified by 15 per cent of in-house counsel in public companies as the most important challenge.

In-house counsel also appear to be loyal to their employers. The average number of years in-house counsel have worked for their current employer is six, down one from 2011.

David Goldman has been appointed general counsel, corporate secretary, and a member of the executive committee at Skyline International Development Inc. in Toronto.

David Goldman will be an in-house counsel of one at Skyline International Development Inc.

Reporting to the hotel group’s CEO Michael Sneyd, Goldman has overall responsibility for the company’s legal affairs, working with Skyline’s development and hospitality teams, maintaining Skyline’s corporate books and records plus managing external legal counsel.

“I’m wearing a number of hats,” says Goldman. “I’m not only doing real estate but also handling employment and trademark issues, tax and corporate as well as some litigation and a tremendous amount of contract review.”

Skyline owns over two million square feet of real estate with over 1,000 hotel rooms in its holdings, as well as four Shizen Spa outlets, and employs more than 1,500 staff. Its asset mix includes a partnership and asset management interest in Le Meridien King Edward Hotel, as well as ownership of the Cosmopolitan Hotel and Pantages Hotel. Skyline’s resort assets include Deerhurst Resort in Muskoka, and Horseshoe Resort.

Goldman says he is enjoying the hands on business experience of being in-house at a real estate development company.

“I was told from day one: ‘We want you to be a partner at the table, that’s what we’re looking for in our general counsel.’ And that’s what it really is,” says Goldman. “They value my input at the initial stages of the business transaction. When I was at a firm I would get the agreement of purchase and sale but now I am in at the table discussing the pros and cons of the transaction and all the business terms. I put together the letter of intent with the CEO who I work incredibly closely with on a day-to-day basis. I would never have seen that in private practice. It’s very exciting.”

While he is the only lawyer in Skyline’s in-house department, there is a law clerk assisting him who has been with the company four years. While Skyline does use external counsel, Goldman says his plan is to try and do as much in-house as he can.

“My goal is to reduce expenses for Skyline and I have been. I’ve negotiated and finalized all large contracts since I arrived — I haven’t sent any contractual work out,” he says. “You definitely have to manage expectations but they appreciate the value general counsel brings to the company.”

Goldman worked for four years as in-house counsel and vice president with another smaller real estate development company prior to joining Skyline. He was previously in private legal practice for 20 years where he was a partner at several law firms with his practice covering most areas of real estate law.

He served as the chairman of the Ontario Bar Association real property section and was a member of the executive for nine years. He is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and has a BA in political science from York University.

Some may view going in-house as an opportunity to leave the stresses of private practice behind but a panel of experienced general counsel want to set the record straight about that — don’t think it means a lighter load. The client can be just as demanding and so is the work.

In-house practice is ‘not a sanctuary for those looking for a slower pace,’ says Simon Fish.

“Some wildly underestimate what’s required of them and they stick around too long. It’s not a sanctuary for those looking for a slower pace,” says Simon Fish, executive vice president and general counsel of the Bank of Montreal.

Fish was speaking as part of a panel entitled Managing Your First Five Years: Critical Concepts for Your Success In-house, part of the Association of Corporate Counsel’s Corporate Counsel Institute Canada held Monday and Tuesday in Toronto.

“I’ve interviewed people who when asked why they want to come in-house say they are seeking ‘a balance’ in their life. In my mind I’m already thinking ‘You’re out of here.’ That’s not the reason you want to join my legal group. It fails to recognize the demands of in-house lawyers.”

Fish also had this advice for those new to the in-house role: “Never say no. If someone comes to you with a great opportunity be slow to turn up your nose at it.”

Going in-house often means taking on responsibilities and learning skills not typically taught at law school or in a firm, many of which are related to business management, says Kathryn Chisholm, senior vice president of legal and regulatory and government affairs with Capital Power Corp. in Alberta.

“You need to be a project manager — you need to be able to herd cats, but don’t let your communication skills get in the way of your advocacy skills. You are risk managers; it’s what makes the difference between good and great internal counsel,” says Chisholm, who adds that a successful general counsel is so because they immerse themselves in the business of the company they work for and ask questions that show they want to aid in its success.

“The only way I ended up in a GC role was because I asked questions that didn’t have anything to do with legalities. I demonstrated an interest in the business that showed I was interested and loyal,” she says.

Project management skills come in handy when dealing with external counsel, says Chisholm. “You need to closely manage external counsel and you must manage them, don’t just monitor external counsel. They aren’t gods — they do have human-like traits.”

ViXS Systems Inc. general counsel Cheryl Foy emphasized the importance of learning about the culture of the company you’re working for and understanding the needs and challenges of the business.

“Figure out who you’re working with. It’s folly to go in with the idea that ‘I’m the lawyer’ — people will argue with your legal opinion. You have to build credibility so assess the culture first,” says Foy.

And when Foy found herself in a situation in a previous in-house job where she wanted to be part of the executive team but wasn’t regarded as such she received this advice: “You need to be acting like you’re at the table already.”

Possibly one of the most important shifts lawyers need to make when they go in-house is their communication style, says David Allgood, executive vice president and general counsel with the Royal Bank of Canada.

“Adapt a communication style that reflects that your audience has changed,” he says. “Remember it’s the enterprise who is your client now.”

Chisholm agrees, saying long-winded legal opinions don’t give the business units what they really need.

“I always tell my lawyers, never come to me with a problem, always come to me with a solution.”

The Superior Court of the district of Montreal has authorized the bringing of what the plaintiff’s lawyer says could be the largest environmental class action in Canadian history.

Chantal Desjardins, lawyer for Francois Deraspe, the individual representing the class, says the case is based on an incident that occurred Aug. 9, 2004 involving a toxic cloud released at a plant operated by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Que. 


Individuals reportedly experienced burning eyes, throat, airways, and respiratory ailments, skin rashes, and other symptoms simultaneously with their exposure to a toxic cloud released by the plant operated by Canadian Electrolytic Zinc. In 2006, Canadian Electrolytic Zinc was acquired by Xstrata, the fourth largest diversified mining company in the world.

Deraspe will ask the court to force the company to pay between $5,000 and $10,000 to each member of the group depending on the prejudice suffered as well as exemplary damages of $5,000. It is estimated the lawsuit could cost up to $900 million.


On Aug. 9 2004, the wind blew from west to northeast resulting in the exposure of all or part of the municipalities and boroughs of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, St-Thimothee, Melocheville, Ile Perrot, Beaconsfield, Dorval, Lachine, Pierrefonds, and Kirkland to the toxic cloud. Deraspe will apply to the court in the coming days to add to that list the municipalities and boroughs of St-Laurent, Cote-St-Luc, Ahunstic-Cartierville, Mont-Royal, Hampstead, Cote-des-Neiges, Notre-Dame-de-Grace; Outremont, Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie; Villeray-St-Michel-Parc-Extension; Montreal-Nord, Laval-des-Rapides and Chomedey.



The lawsuit alleges a toxic cloud of 10 tonnes of sulphur trioxide had been released in the environment from an 80-metre high smokestack while the wind was blowing at 17 km/h towards densely populated areas.

Desjardins says employees present at the plant at the time were not affected by the cloud since it was airborne up until half a kilometre from the plant where it started gliding at ground level for more than a hundred kilometers.

“On the evening of the release the wind was blowing eastward and therefore the cloud exposed many towns and boroughs of the city of Montréal along its path. People were exposed to different concentrations and not all of those exposed were affected by the cloud,” says Desjardins.

In May 2010, the company filed a motion to have the class action dismissed on the grounds that the courts had already ruled on that matter. The Superior Court of Quebec denied the motion in December 2010 and its ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal in February 2011. The application filed by the company for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada in September 2011.