In the specific case of Skyway Canada Limited v Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Limited, 2016 SKQB 295 (Skyway v CCRL), the plaintiff is suing for the defendant under s. 15 of the Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002, SS 2002, c E-10.21 (“EMPA”). The case states, “Skyway pleads that it suffered damage to property in the amount of $2,771,823.34, and business interruption loss of $181,529.08” (Skyway v CCRL para 2). This case uses judge law to analyze whether the plaintiff’s argument provides reasonable claim under EMPA. The plaintiff is trying to prove loss or damage as a result of discharges, which occurs when an unsafe substance is released into the environment causing harm. Section 15 of EMPA provides,
15(1) In this section, …show more content…
(2) The amount of any costs and expenses incurred with respect to an investigation taken pursuant to section 8 is a debt due to and recoverable by the Crown in right of Saskatchewan from the persons responsible for the discharge.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), any person, including the Crown in right of
Saskatchewan or in right of Canada, has a right to compensation from:
(a) the person responsible for a discharge for loss or damage incurred as a result of:
(i) the discharge of a substance;
(ii) neglect or default in the execution of a duty imposed pursuant to section 4;

Under this legislation, s. 15 (2) advises that any person in Saskatchewan has a right to compensation from the person who is responsible for discharge if impacted. However with the plaintiffs’ current claim, it does not provide facts for each component of s. 15(1), and how each subsection relates to their damages. It mentions that the plaintiff is required to clearly plead the facts. This means that Skyway must provide clarification to support the cause of action. The case also outlines CCRL’s argument, which debates the claim is not associated with the environment or human health, a requirement under EMPA, which therefore has no standing with the court. Overall the decision was made that the plaintiff is required to amend their statement of claim to determine if the case is arguable for compensation under …show more content…
the parties were unable to proceed to court. Janvier et al. case was terminated, as the current legislations in Saskatchewan prevents workers’ from suing employers for damages in the event of a workplace injury. Currently, the parties are petitioning WCB to review their policy and legislations, as the victims do not feel adequately compensated (Leo 2014). As WCB is bound by policy and legislation, and the liability protection towards employers is an important component this legislation, this matter is not appealable to the Board unless revisions are made to Saskatchewan