Alberta Law Review
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.
Citation of this paper:
Botterell, A. and J. Neyers. “Tate & Lyle: Pure Economic Loss and the Modern Tort of Public Nuisance” Alberta Law Review 53:4 (2016): 1030-1051.