Our carbon footprint may be reduced as a result of new green legislation sweeping the country, but our legal landscape is likely to experience a power surge.

That's because when Canadians get passionate about something -- such as the environment -- they often care enough to go to court.

"The emotional opposition to power energy projects is very significant. The Ontario ministry of the environment says it's as vociferous as it is to landfill sites. It's surprising," says Dianne Saxe, an environmental lawyer in Toronto.

In Ontario, which earlier this year passed the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, that opposition may be growing fastest and strongest. "It seems to be a broader attack on the Green Energy Act and how it seems to circumvent typical environmental approvals," says Paul Harricks, chair of the energy and infrastructure group with Gowling Lafleur Henderson in Toronto.

In an effort to fight back, lawyers and their clients are looking at new ways to apply established law. Ian Hanna, for example, has requested a judicial review of the Ontario government's new environmental legislation. The Prince Edward County resident contends more research is required into the potential adverse health effects of wind energy before the province has the legal right to build five turbines about 900 metres from his property. In a novel move, Mr. Hanna's legal team is using the precautionary principle to make their stand.

"The ... case is a very old argument, but now it is packaged as part of the precautionary principle," notes Ms. Saxe. "New ground may be broken for sure."

Indeed, says Mr. Harricks, "if the decision is strongly based on health risks -- and that's a big if -- it could be used in other cases."

Other unusual applications of the law are expected. "There's always room for new approaches and new types of arguments," says Michel Gagne, a litigation partner with McCarthy Tetrault in Montreal.

A recent decision of the U.S. second circuit court of appeal did just that, albeit south of the border. A number of state governments had launched a lawsuit against electrical power companies with respect to global warming and power emissions. The court found in favour of the states and required the companies to reduce their emissions.

"The court of appeal decided the plaintiff states had a serious cause of action," says Mr. Gagne. "It is the kind of case we would not have foreseen. It is possible that we will see some litigation related to some of these issues." Certainly a recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Heyes v. City of Vancouver, has breathed new life into what are commonly called nuisance claims. The court ruled that the plaintiff's business had been adversely affected despite the fact that the companies in question had government approval for the work they were doing and had passed an environmental assessment.

"The concept of nuisance is being tested at its boundaries now," says Mark Madras, a partner with Gowlings in

Toronto who specializes in environmental law.

"We may be seeing some flex in the application of these principles or we may see a stricter application. It's very much a sensitive area."

It's also a continuum, he adds. "The ability to advance a nuisance claim may vary in the level of intrusiveness. Solar would be at the lower end of the scale. Wind would be higher."

The law of nuisance may well be used to address new issues, says Mr. Saxe. "Applicants could obtain approval and still face a nuisance lawsuit."

In St. Lawrence Cement v. Barrette, roughly 2,000 residents of Beauport, Que., filed a class-action suit against the company for "neighbourhood disturbances."

"The court held St. Lawrence Cement was responsible for dust even though it found it had not been negligent and had approval to build and operate where it did," says Ms. Saxe.

Expect more of these environmental class-action suits, says Mr. Gagne.

He also believes the door may be open for another, and newer, type of suit against government.

"Plaintiffs could allege government is responsible for enforcing its laws and regulations. If the government does not do this, private parties could sue them."

Lawyers need to keep abreast and stay tuned. "It's hard to know where the fallout from some of the initiatives will be," says Mr. Harricks.

Time, and the courts, will tell.