Rouyn-Noranda – May 16, 2025. Citizens Julie Fortier and Miguel Charlebois of Rouyn-Noranda, represented by their lawyers at Siskinds Desmeules, filed a motion for authorization to institute a class action lawsuit on October 23, 2023, in the Superior Court of Quebec against the Government of Quebec and the multinational corporation Glencore, owner of the Horne Smelter, for damages caused to people who lived in the urban area of the City of Rouyn-Noranda as a result of the release of toxic and/or carcinogenic contaminants (including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and sulfur) into the atmosphere by the Horne Smelter.
From May 12 to 15, 2025, the parties returned to the Rouyn-Noranda courthouse to present their closing arguments. Here is a brief summary followed by a press review.
Arguments and allegations presented during oral arguments
Petitioners(citizens of Rouyn-Noranda)
- As early as 1979, experts told the government that air and soil contamination around the smelter was a public health issue and that action to remedy the situation was a priority.
- Since the late 1970s, there has been an information imbalance between the smelter and the government on one side and the public on the other. The former know that the contamination poses health risks and are not taking action, nor are they informing the public so that it can deal with the threat.
- The smelter does not have a vested right to pollute. The government must regulate its activities.
- The plaintiffs demonstrate that their claim meets the criteria for authorization of class action.
- Regarding government immunity: if a right guaranteed by the charter is not respected, the burden of non-liability would fall on the government in this case.
- Contests the scope of the concept of “acquired right.” If there is an acquired right, it is a right to operate, but not to pollute.
- Based on section 197 of the Air Quality Regulation (RAA), clean-up certificates (which became ministerial authorizations) issued after 2011 should have ultimately aimed to meet the RAA standard.
Attorney General of Québec (Québec Government)
- The Attorney General of Quebec (AGQ) alleges that the action is time-barred. According to the AGQ, the public became aware of its right to take action before October 23, 2020, but without specifying exactly when.
- The PGQ acknowledges that the buffer zone project constitutes expropriation.
- The PGQ points out that the ministerial authorizations of 2007, 2010, 2017, and 2023 were not challenged in court. They are not being challenged, so they are valid.
- All citizens of Rouyn-Noranda should have read the biomonitoring study published in 2019. Everything was in that study; it was just a matter of reading it or looking it up on Google.
- The PGQ blames the Abitibi-Témiscamingue Public Health Department, which should have published the appendix on the risks of developing cancer and other serious diseases.
- According to the PGQ, “psychological disorders must be distinguished from the annoyance, inconvenience, and fears that everyone living in society must accept.”
Horne Smelter (Glencore)
- Glencore alleges that the action is time-barred.
- Glencore mentions that the scope of the action poses an existential threat to the Horne Smelter. Glencore mentions the fate of the many workers who could lose their jobs.
- Glencore questions the similarity of the case to the Shannon case.
- Glencore insists that the smelter has always provided information about its activities and that the public was aware of them.
- Glencore traces the origins of the Comité permanent sur l’environnement à Rouyn-Noranda (CPERN) back to 1978, when its mandate included informing the public. Glencore cites numerous reports from that period, which it claims were all public.
- Glencore mentions the work done by the smelter on lead and soil restoration. The company adds that it was obvious to people that the source was not just in the soil.
- Glencore devotes much of its argument to detailing the urine study conducted in 2005-2006 to explain the absence of a problem.
- Glencore returns to the 2013 letter from Dr. Réal Lacombe, director of the Regional Public Health Department, to illustrate that the danger is minimal.
- Glencore mentions having reservations about the 2019 biomonitoring study by the Abitibi-Témiscamingue Public Health Department.
- Glencore questions the DSP data published in 2022, since the population of Rouyn-Noranda was not compared to that of Val-d'Or, but to that of Quebec as a whole.
- Glencore insists that there is no causal link. The company states that the CISSSAT resolution should not have mentioned the Horne Smelter, as the causal link has not been proven.
- Glencore cites the INSPQ report to question the size of the groups targeted by the action, which it considers too large.
- Glencore insists that it has complied with government authorizations.
- Glencore cites judgments in which the uncertain nature of the consequences did not make them liable. The company alleges that serious trauma is required to establish moral damage.
- Glencore questions the scope of the group. The company uses the soil characterization study conducted by the Regional Public Health Department to claim that the soil is only slightly contaminated in the urban area, without mentioning the limitations of the study and other existing reports that shed a completely different light on the situation.
- Glencore alleges that the carcinogenic risk is overestimated in the INSPQ studies. It claims that in the general population, the risk of cancer is around 40%. According to the company, the risk associated with emissions from the smelter “is lower than minimal.”
- Glencore asserts that there was no reason for citizens to be concerned.
- Glencore has spoken at length about its “responsible conduct.”
Press review
Before the beginning of the hearings:
RADIO-CANADA, Un recours collectif contre la Fonderie Horne et le gouvernement du Québec, Thomas Gerbet, 23 octobre 2023, en ligne : <https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2020237/justice-glencore-gouvernement-rouyn-noranda-abitibi>
RADIO-CANADA, Les Rouynorandiens connaissaient les effets sur la santé de la Fonderie, selon Québec, Annie-Claude Luneau, 22 septembre 2024, en ligne : <https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2106107/pollution-action-collective-fonderie-rouyn-audiences>
First day of the hearing, May 12, 2025 (Pleadings by the plaintiff and the defendant)
RADIO-CANADA, Action collective contre Glencore et Québec : l’inaction du gouvernement dénoncée, Jean-Marc Belzile, 12 mai 2025, en ligne : <https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2164594/fonderie-horne-arsenic-action-collective>
Third day of hearings, May 14, 2025 | Closing arguments by Horne Smelter (Glencore)
RADIO-CANADA, Action collective : « Une menace existentielle pour la Fonderie », plaide Glencore, Jean-Marc Belzile, 14 mai 2025, en ligne : <https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2165202/action-collective-horne-glencore-quebec>
TVA ABITIBI-TÉMISCAMINGUE, Qualité de l’air : Les audiences se poursuivent pour l’action collective, Alexandre Cabana, 14 mai 2025, en ligne : <https://tvaabitibi.ca/2025/05/14/qualite-de-lair-les-audiences-se-poursuivent-pour-laction-collective/>
Fourth day of the hearing, May 15, 2025 | Closing arguments
RADIO-CANADA, L’action collective contre Glencore et Québec pourrait prendre plus d’ampleur, Jean-Marc Belzile, 15 mai 2025, en ligne : <https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2165458/fonderie-horne-action-glencore>
Source : Coalition Québec meilleure mine
For more information:
- Rodrigue Turgeon, Coalition Québec meilleure mine et MiningWatch Canada, 819-444-9226, rodrigue@miningwatch.ca