Damages for environmental damage.

The British Columbia government sued Canadian Forest Products (Canfor) for damages arising out of a forest fire in 1992. It asked for damages for the actual costs of fighting the fire, the loss of revenue from trees that would have been harvested, and the loss of trees set aside for environmental reasons in sensitive areas. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in its majority opinion that this case was limited to the commercial value of the destroyed timber and awarded damages for the costs of fighting the fire only. However, the Court made it clear that in a proper case, damages could be awarded for environmental loss. The Court listed three components of environmental loss: use value, existence value, and inherent value. Use value includes the services humans gain from the ecosystem, such as food, water, and recreational opportunities. Existence value refers to the psychological value of knowing that a resource is protected, and there is an option of being able to use the resource in the future, even if it is never used. Inherent value means a usefulness beyond human needs because the resource is important in and of itself. Justice Ian Binnie also identified some of the factors that might go into assessing environmental loss, such as

* the nature of the wildlife, plants, and other organisms protected by the environmental resource, and in particular whether rare or commercially valuable species could be put at risk by damage or destruction of the ecosystem;

* the uniqueness of the ecosystem from a biological perspective;

* the environmental services provided by the resource such as water quality and erosion control;

* the recreational opportunities provided by the resource; * the subjective or emotional attachment of the public to the damaged or destroyed area.

The Court stated, " ... it is open to the Crown in a proper case to take action ... for compensation and injunctive relief on account of public nuisance, or negligence causing environmental damage to public lands ..."

British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. 2004 SCC 38