Abstract
Professor Lewis Klar criticizes the Canadian approach to the tort of public nuisance forbeing illogical and incoherent. The authors agree with Klar’s assessment of the current stateof public nuisance law, but argue that insights drawn from the House of Lords decision inTate & Lyle Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council offer a way forward. Byconceptualizing the tort of public nuisance as a cause of action that protects subjects fromsuffering actual loss that is consequential on the violation of their passage and fishing rightsover public property, Tate & Lyle offers a coherent and restrained formulation of the tortof public nuisance. This article examines the Tate & Lyle approach to public nuisance andapplies it to two infamous Canadian public nuisance cases. It concludes that the coherent,logical approach to public nuisance articulated by the House of Lords in Tate & Lyle shouldbe readopted by Canadian courts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
