FANDOM


FactsEdit

Brown owns a house that is close to a paper mill which was in operation before the house was purchased. After a time, the paper mill began using sulfates in their processes, which emitted fumes so noxious that they rendered Brown's house uninhabitable at times. Brown brought an action for an injunction which was successful, and Canada Paper appealed.

IssueEdit

  1. Is an injunction reasonable when it shuts down the primary industry in a small town?

DecisionEdit

Appeal denied, injunction upheld.

ReasonsEdit

Canada Paper argues that because it is such a powerful business in the small town, and because the introduction of this new method will "benefit the town" that the residents have no claim against them for their private losses. Idington staunchly disagrees with this and states that the defendants must be stopped as this is undoubtedly an actionable nuisance. He holds that the court must keep in view the essential merits of the remedy as a means of protecting the rights of property and preventing them from being infringed upon by assertions of what will be better for the community.

RatioEdit

Canadian statement of the rationale behind the Shelfer rule.

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.