Law Publications

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2016

Journal

Alberta Law Review

Volume

53

Issue

4

First Page

1030

Last Page

1051

Abstract

Professor Lewis Klar criticizes the Canadian approach to the tort o f public nuisance for being illogical and incoherent. The authors agree with Klar's assessment o f the current state of public nuisance law, but argue that insights drawn from the House o f Lords decision in Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council offer a way forward. By conceptualizing the tort o f public nuisance as a cause o f action that protects subjects from suffering actual loss that is consequential on the violation of their passage and fishing rights over public property, Tate & Lyle offers a coherent and restrained formulation o f the tort o f public nuisance. This article examines the Tate & Lyle approach to public nuisance and applies it to two infamous Canadian public nuisance cases. It concludes that the coherent, logical approach to public nuisance articulated by the House o f Lords in T ate & Lyle should be readopted by Canadian courts.

Notes

This and other articles from the Alberta Law Review can be accessed here.

Find in your library

Included in

Torts Commons

Share

COinS