Payback time?

Quantifying the Liability Risk The potential liability risk borne by greenhouse gas producers depends upon many factors, including the rights of the plaintiffs, the nature of the claim and the type of defendant. [...] The “real and substantial connection” between Alberta and the flooding65 would seem to be more important than the connection be- tween the flood and the greenhouse gas emissions that occurred in any one of the many countries that contributed to the emissions, since none of those national emissions, on their own, are sufficient to have “caused” the damage. [...] In such a case, it may well be that the consequences would be held to constitute the wrong.68 Similarly, in litigation related to the right of the province of British Col- umbia to pass legislation related to tobacco lawsuits, the Supreme Court wrote that in such lawsuits, and therefore the legislation: [N]o territory could possibly assert a stronger relationship to that cause of action than Briti [...] The laws of the place where the damages occurred would then be the lex loci delicti,73 making it possible for a plaintiff to sue Canadian companies in Canada, or in another country where the defendant companies have assets, while arguing that the law of the country where the impacts occurred, and not Canadian law, should apply. [...] Rome II, which came into force in 2009, adopts what is essentially a lex loci delicti ap- proach, although its language describes the approach in terms of damages: [T]he law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort/de- lict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespec- tive of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and Payba