Nuisance on Property: (Re)Making Canada | An Open Legal Coursebook

An Intro to Nuisance

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Adapted from Jeremy Sheff, “Estates and Future Interests” in Stephen Clowney, James Grimmelmann, Michael Grynberg, Jeremy Sheff, and Rebecca Tushnet, eds., Open Source Property: A Free Casebook, https://opensourceproperty.org (2015).

There is perhaps no more impenetrable jungle in the entire law than that regarding the word nuisance.

– Prosser and Keeton on Torts 86 (5th ed. 1984).

People want to use land for different things. We’ve already seen how the resulting conflicts provide a rationale for property rights. In the so-called tragedy of the commons, for example, each cattle owner has an incentive to use the pasture for grazing before someone else beats him or her to it. The race to consume leaves the pasture depleted and everyone worse off. Property rights are one, but by no means the only, mechanism for addressing the problem, as an individual owner may have the necessary incentive to ensure that the plot is not overconsumed. Likewise property rights enable owners to manage their holdings free from external interference. The farmer may plant her corn even though her neighbor wishes a hotel were there. And property rights facilitate the reconciliation of incompatible interests without outside intervention. Determining whether Blackacre is better off as a hotel or a farm might be a hard call for an outside regulator. But with enough money, the would-be hotelier may simply buy out the farmer (or vice versa).

Victoria Park Racing and Recreational Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Latham C.J. — #

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendants given by Nicholas J. in an action by the Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd against Taylor and others.

The plaintiff company carries on the business of racing upon a racecourse known as Victoria Park. The defendant Taylor is the owner of land near the racecourse. He has placed an elevated platform on his land from which it is possible to see what takes place on the racecourse and to read the information which appears on notice boards on the course as to the starters, scratchings, etc, and the winners of the races. The defendant Angles stands on the platform and through a telephone comments upon and describes the races in a particularly vivid manner and announces the names of the winning horses. The defendant the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation holds a broadcasting licence under the regulations made under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1936 and carries on the business of broadcasting from station 2 UW. This station broadcasts the commentaries and descriptions given by Angles. The plaintiff wants to have the broadcasting stopped because it prevents people from going to the races and paying for admission. The evidence shows that some people prefer hearing about the races as seen by Angles to seeing the races for themselves. The plaintiff contends that the damage which it thus suffers gives, in all the circumstances, a cause of action.

Shelfer v City of London Electrical Lighting Co.

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

The defendant in this case, the City of London Electric Lighting Company, operated large engines and other heavy machinery that caused damage to the foundations of a pub, the Waterman’s Arms, leased by the plaintiff, Shelfer, as well as a lot of noise and other “annoyances”. There was no question about the existence of the nuisance—the only issue before the court was what type of remedy should be available to the plaintiff.

Black v Canadian Copper Co.

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Middleton J. — #

A large number of actions were brought, and many others threatened against the Canadian Copper Company, for damages supposed to have been sustained from vapours contained in metallurgical smoke issuing from the roast beds and smelter stacks of that company at Copper Cliff, near Sudbury. A motion was made to consolidate these actions resulting in the choice of four cases which were to proceed and to be regarded as test actions, the others remaining in abeyance in the meantime.

Canada Paper Co v Brown

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

The Chief Justice — #

For the reasons stated by my brother Anglin, I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs.

Idington J. — #

The respondent as the owner of property acquired some years before the appellant, in conducting its business as the manufacturers of pulp and paper, had ventured upon methods complained of herein, and had built thereon for himself an expensive home and surrounded it with everything to make that home comfortable and enjoyable.