LAW CASE STUDY

LAW CASE STUDY
Name:
Course:
Professor Name:
(July 2, 2012)
LAW CASE STUDY
Case overview
R. v. Commander Business Furniture Inc. was a 1992 case which involved Commander Business Furniture Ltd and the Scarborough residents. The defendant was undertaking a business in spray painting office furniture, which produced some hazardous emissions to the environment. The plaintiff accused the defendant of producing odour which caused some environmental discomfort in the area. They further argued that the odour seriously affected their property use and that immediate response would relieve them from the challenge. Mr. Hanson on the other hand was the vice chairman and the general manager of the company, who was not only in charge of operations, but also the custodian of the shareholders` interests. The counter accusation of the company by the local residents triggered some investigations proceedings and consequently to a charge in the court of law (Hackett Prov. Ct. J, 1992).
Important issues
According to the local residents, there was an M.O.E between Commander through Mr. Hanson and the residents. This was established back in 1985, and it sort to significantly reduce or abate the residents` complaints regarding the odour. But according to the residents the company did not take any reasonable efforts to respond to the situation.
Section 13(1) E.P.A was very critical to the case, since the resident were supposed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the company was actively engaged to some hazardous operation which not only contaminated the environment, but also cause some adverse effects on them. A number of law sections were significant for terminology definitions, for instance section 1(1)(c) defined the term contamination while section 1(1)(k) defined natural environment. The two sections were important in identifying the position of odour and its impacts to the environment (Hackett Prov. Ct. J, 1992).
There were a total of six witnesses on the side of the residents, but they had some contradictions in them. Ms. Heubner, Mr. Colpitts, Ms. Leung and Ms. Squires all confessed that there was a persistent paint odour which was coming from the Commander. Accrding to them the odour could be defined as a strong, terrible, bad smelling pungent which contaminated the surrounding environment. Although they were never cross-examined in the court of law, their grievances were represented by Ms. Birkbeck. But the information given by Ms. Welfle slightly contradicted with the previously given information, since it described the odour as dry-cleaning like smell which probably from the many cleaning companies around. She too however confirmed that the odour was strong enough to cause some discomfort to the nearby residents.
The information given by Mr. Arnold contradicted with all the witnesses, as he argued that he had never experienced any disturbing odour at his residence for the last six years which he lived there. He said that he sometimes experienced the odour, but obly when he was walking his dog along the industrial strip. However, according to him the odour never bothered him at all. He also testified that he never smelled any strong odour coming from Commander. He argued that the accusation was false since he had a chronic asthma and bronchitis disease which was very sensitive to smell (Hackett Prov. Ct. J, 1992).
Mr. Curran however dismissed Mr. Arnold`s claim that there was no any odour smell in the region. He specifically investigated the presence of odour in the surrounding environs, where a positive feedback was experienced. He did this sometimes in January and February 1990. Mr. Curran likewise testified that the odour experienced in the complainant residents resembled the odour sourced from Commander. Likewise, a scientific survey conducted in the same year proved that the Commander emitted some odour as described above (Hackett Prov. Ct. J, 1992).
From the above evidence one could have differentiated conclusions. First, if Arnold was telling the truth, then the rest of the witnesses could be having some social, economic or political improper reasons against the Commander. There were some notions that Ms. Birkbeck was personally fuelling her neighbors to raise some complaints against the firm. But all this accusations were baseless, and had no evidence to support them. There was absolutely no reason which could prove Ms. Birkbeck`s conspiracy against the firm. Second was that although the information given by Arnold was different from others, it seemed more credible and reliable for the case. He testified that he never smelled any adour, although he was asthmatic and also had some bronchitis health problem. Furthermore in his statement, he used to walk his dog around the area, and was more likely to have experienced the smell, but in contrary he never experienced it. If his statement was true, then it could mean that the rest of the witnesses were having a conspiracy to bring down the Commander. But there was also some likelihood that, Mr. Arnold did not relate well with his neighbors especially Ms. Birkbeck who he thinks was mobilizing the rest to launch complaints against the Commander. Because of their personal difference, Mr. Arnold may have chosen to have his own standing on the issue, just to contradict with the woman. The reason why someone is prompted to think that way is because it is not in order to find that everyone else can smell the odour except him. In addition, after the complaints, Mr. Curran who is an abatement officer launched an investigation which proved in did that the residents were actually smelling the odour, and that the odour was coming from Commander Company (Hackett Prov. Ct. J, 1992).
After a thoughtful analysis of the varying statements given by the reside...