{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018789144050104383, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2272727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Assessment of Environmental Damages Following the Supreme Court's Decision in Canfor

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., it is plain that any claim for environmental loss will have to be based on a coherent theory of damages and methodologies suitable for their assessment. The development of such a theory raises several important issues, including the nature of environmental harm and the purpose of compensation for such harm. An examination of the common law, legislation and academic literature reveals that protection of the environment, as a fundamental Canadian value, is predicated on the recognition that a healthy environment is requisite to the continuing well-being and prosperity of all Canadians, present and future. As such, any theory for assessing environmental damage must, first and foremost, recognize this function of the environment and seek to redress the injury done to it.