FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,040 times | Saved to 254 briefcases
340909 Ontario Ltd v Huron Steel Products Ltd (1990), 73 OR (2d) 641 (HCJ)

Facts:

About a steel stamping plant near an apartment building. A press is built that causes excessive noise, resulting in loss of value and loss of renters.

Issue(s):

Does the plaintiff have a cause of action in nuisance?

Ratio:

What constitutes unreasonable interference:
** 1. The severity of the interference, having regard to its nature and duration and effect;
** 2. The character of the locale;
** 3. The utility of the defendant’s conduct;
** 4. The sensitivity of the use interfered with.

Analysis:

Question is NOT: is the defendant using his property in what would be a reasonable manner if he had no neighbour

Question IS: is the defendant using it reasonably, having regard to the fact that he has a neighbour?

What constitutes unreasonable interference:
** 1. The severity of the interference, having regard to its nature and duration and effect;
** 2. The character of the locale;
** 3. The utility of the defendant’s conduct;
** 4. The sensitivity of the use interfered with (not at issue in this case).

Nature of the interference: The judge considered that the steel company could have made improvements that they opted not to make. The judge also consider the duration and effect, stating that P must show that the alleged nuisance has caused it damage.

Holding:

Decision in favour of plaintiff; noise constitutes nuisance.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.