This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Disputes between neighbours about boundary trees are not uncommon; private prosecutions by neighbours against neighbours, especially concerning boundary trees, are uncommon. In a recent decision, Justice Libman of the Ontario Court of Justice upheld a lower court conviction obtained on a private prosecution with respect to a violation of the Forestry Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.
By Dena Adler. Photo Credit: Malcolm MacLeod via Wikimedia Commons. On November 21, 2017, the High Court of Ireland blocked a climate change case concerning construction of a new airport runway from moving forward, but made a groundbreaking decision in recognizing “a personal constitutional right to an environment” for the first time. In Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v.
I am not certain whether I should welcome our readers to this year’s Top 10 Environmental Watch List or provide a warning along the lines of “Discretion Advised: Readers May Find This Material Disturbing.” A central question occupying environmental lawyers of all stripes is the degree to which the current federal administration, under the leadership of President Trump, his cabinet and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, will disrupt federal environmental and natural resources policies constructed ov
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content