Merchant Law Class Action Lawsuit Continuing Updates


Click HERE to be taken to Merchant Law Group website - Please read their page, you will find contact information at the bottom...

From time to time, updates concerning the class action lawsuit will be posted on this page.



Merchant Law update - July 27, 2012

Our firm appreciates that your website includes information about the class action litigation we have pursued. Regarding the above webpage, we would ask that it be updated pursuant to the information that you will find at the above link.

Newfoundland Court of Appeal Judgment - March 22, 2010 - The order certifying a class action was set aside after an Appeal was Heard: September 23, 24, 25 and 26, 2009


UPDATE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGENT ORANGE - January 14 2010

I had the opportunity to speak to Merchant Law and I would like to provide you with an update on the Class Action Lawsuit.

--Manitoba has been certified.
--Sask. certification has been refused and is being appealed
--Nfld. is on reserve

They confirmed that everyone is covered under the Manitoba certification that is part of the Class Action Lawsuit for Agent Orange.

Carol Brown Parker
Co-President
Agent Orange Association Canada Inc. aka AOAC Inc.

Inquiry of Ministry - May 6, 2009 - The Honourable Senator Downe asked the Government of Canada to provide the cost of fighting against the Canadian Veterans' class action lawsuit, on January 26, 2009. The full question and the response, received on May 6th, can be read in this document.

Plaintiff's Brief - March 30, 2009 - In The Court Of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre Of Regina. This is a very large file that will take time to open... Please be patient, dial-up will take a VERY long time.

Queen's Bench Saskatchewan - Jan 30, 2009 - Justice Zarzeczny In the Court of Queens Bench, Saskatchewan: This is a response to a Nov 2008 application to stay the process leading to the certification of the class action in Saskatchewan. In this response, Justice Zarzeczny ruled to dismiss the application by the defendants. Justice Zarzeczny also ruled the court costs were to be shared equally by the Government, Dow and Monsanto concerning this application.

Fiat - October 27, 2008 - Justice Zarzeczny In The Court of Queens Bench, Saskatchewan - definition of the word FIAT= decree: a legally binding command or decision entered on the court record (as if issued by a court or judge).. In this case it is a strict schedule laid down by Justice Zarzeczny for this class action application for all litigants.

Statement of Defence - September 5, 2008 - In The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division, before Honourable Justice Carl Thompson - Case Management Judge

Decision of Justice Barry - Dec11, 2007 - Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador,
(Stay of proceedings, August 1, 2007 lifted, allows certification to move forward - NFLD)

Ward v. Canada - October 23, 2007, - Appeal Division, Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba, (The Government's appeal to Stay or Dismiss the Manitoba class action was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Manitoba, a unanimous decision)

Decision of Justice Scurfield - September 22, 2006, - Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba, ( leave granted to proceed to a certification hearing)

Decision of Justice Barry - August 1, 2007, - Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, (The requirements for Certification of the class action were met and Stayed pending further submissions)

Dobbie v. Canada - May 3, 2006, - Federal Court - Ottawa - Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen - (Governments Motion for Stay granted to permit the commencement of this class action in a provincial superior court)

______________________________________

Merchant Law Introduction (quoted from their website)

On July 12, 2005 our firm launched a class action in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of plaintiffs who claim to have suffered various types of harm and injury as a result of the use and
disposal of Agent Orange, Agent Purple, or Agent White at CFB Gagetown between 1956 to 1985.

That action was stayed in the Federal Court when the government moved to join Monsanto and Dow as third party defendants with the result that we began issuing proceedings in May 2006 in various superior courts in the provinces. We believe we have an even stronger case now than we did a year plus ago when we began this work to achieve justice, as we see it, for the victims of government action in the Gagetown area.

If you were a member of the military, the family of a military member, a visitor, or a civilian or owned or own land in the CFB Gagetown area, or lived in the area at material times, and have suffered or expect to suffer one or more of the injuries listed, you are entitled to participate in the class action, if you meet the criteria of the following definition:

All individuals (including their estates) who claim to have suffered or expect to suffer injury
to their persons or their property as a result of the spraying of various chemicals by the Defendant between 1956 and 1984 at CFB Gagetown; the injures include:

i) one of more of the following illnesses and losses consequent thereon:

Cancer - lung, stomach, soft tissue, liver
Skin disorders - chloracne, hyperpigmentation, hirsutism.

Male reproductive toxicity - reduced sperm count, testicular atrophy,
abnormal testis structure, reduced size of genital organs, lower male hormone levels, feminization of hormonal, and behavioural responses.

Female reproductive toxicity - hormonal changes, decreased fertility,
inability to maintain pregnancy, ovarian dysfunction, endometriosis.

On unborn fetus - birth defects, alterations in reproductive system, decreased
sperm count, altered mating behavior, structural abnormalities in female genitalia, reduced fertility, delayed puberty, neurological problems, developmental problems,

Hormonal Changes including alterations in sex, thyroid, digestive and other
hormones,
Immune suppression and increased susceptibility to infectious diseases, Metabolic changes including altered glucose response, decreased insulin levels, altered fat metabolism, weight loss, wasting syndrome, fetal
death.

Neurological Symptoms - headaches, muscle weakness, reduced sex drive,
dizziness, nervousness, difficulties with erection, irritability, anxiety, decreased mental efficiency, depression, crying spells, insomnia, apathy, fatigue, loss of feeling in extremities, tremor, slowed thinking, tingling in toes and fingers, numbness, social withdrawal, slowed nerve conduction velocity, anorexia, trouble concentrating,

Damage to liver, thymus, spleen, and bone marrow,
Damage to heart leading to arrhythmias,
Diabetes,
Lung Problems,
chronic pain and suffering;
Such other illnesses as are proved to be capable of being caused by the
chemicals.

ii) death after contracting one of the illnesses described in i);

iii) loss of companionship of a mother, father, son, daughter, or sibling who died after
contracting one of the illnesses described in i);

iv) The additional costs of raising a disabled child;

v) mental suffering as a result of having one or more miscarriages, and losses associated
with pregnancy including loss of employment, loss of mobility, pain and suffering occurring during pregnancy and during childbirth and loss of an opportunity to have an abortion after becoming pregnant with a child that was likely to be born with a disability;

vi) reduced income and diminished quality of life as a result of being born with a
disability;

vii) property losses:

a. reduced value of land
b. costs to test for contamination in land
c. costs to remove contamination in land

viii) Enhanced risk of future injury

ix) Medical surveillance expenses

x) Fear of contracting a serious disease

It is important to know that even if the action is certified, a class action is designed to fairly and
efficiently resolve a number of questions that each Class Member has in common.

A. What was sprayed, when, where, and how much?

B. Did what was sprayed "escape" from the land controlled by the Defendant, and if so,
where, when, and how much?

C. Under all of the circumstances, what were and are the natural consequences of the
escape of the chemicals that were sprayed?

D. Can what was sprayed cause, materially contribute to, or materially contribute to the
risk of any of the injuries and harms claimed for and if so, which injuries or harms?

E. Which class or classes of persons, if any, did the Defendant owe a private law duty
of care to?
F. What was the standard of care expected of the Defendant in spraying the chemicals and subsequently dealing with the concerns arising from the spraying and how, if at
all, did it change over time?

G. Did the Defendant breach the standard of care as determined?

H. If so, what are the appropriate remedies for each class of persons?

I. Does the conduct of the Defendant under all of the circumstances merit an award of
punitive damages?

T
he answers to one or more of these questions may significantly advance your personal claim against the Government. However, the Court may ultimately require you to prove the types of illnesses you have suffered and other facts that are unique to your own circumstances. At this time, you can assist, the proposed representative plaintiffs, who will assist our firm in
advancing your claim(s) against the government, by providing us with the following information:

(1) The types of health problems you suffer or expect to suffer from and copies of any
medical records you may have.

(2) When you were stationed at or lived around CFB Gagetown, that is, the years you
were present near the base.

(3) Whether you owned any land around the base at any time.

(4) Any public representations the government made at any time.

(5) Anything else you think may be of interest to us.

Our law firm is accepting you as a client based on an agreement between you and our firm that for
our legal services and advocacy, our firm will be paid: a 25% contingency fee from your share of any compensation or benefits that you receive as a result of exposure to Agent Orange or similar toxins, plus reimbursement of our disbursement expenses, and that our firm will retain any costs awarded; subject to any legislation or rules which entitle you to apply to a court with respect to court approval or taxation of contingency fees or counsel fees in class action proceedings (for example, section 64(3) of The Legal Profession Act, 1990, S.S. 1990-91, c. L.-10.1, and The Federal Court Rules, 1998.) Please indicate your willingness to participate in this proposed class action on these terms by calling
1-888-567-7777 and giving us your name, address, telephone, and email (if available).

Then, at your convenience, please write to us with information about your circumstances, including any health problems experienced by you or members of your family which you believe have been caused by Agent Orange, White, or Purple, which were sprayed.

A recent study showed chemical levels in parts of Camp Gagetown to be fifty times allowable
levels! Fifty times now and likely higher in the past!

Please inform anyone else who may have a claim for Agent Orange exposure to contact us at
1-888-567-7777 or cchurko@merchantlaw.com. There are signs, including statements from Prime Minister Harper that the government's wrongheaded prior position is changing. The battle to achieve fairness will continue and we are making progress.

Thank you.
Yours truly,
MERCHANT LAW GROUP
Per:
CASEY R. CHURKO


back to the top