Facts[]
Brown owns a summer home that is close to a paper mill which has been in operation for years. The house was purchased by Brown, with knowledge that the paper mill was operating. However the property was purchased from his father, and had been in his family for hundreds of years. After a time, the paper mill then began using sulfates in their processes, which emitted fumes so noxious that they rendered Brown's house uninhabitable at times.
Issue[]
- Is an injunction reasonable when it shuts down the primary industry in a small town?
Decision[]
Appeal denied, injunction upheld.
Reasons[]
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.
Ratio[]
Canadian statement of the rationale behind the Shelfer rule.