Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against Neighborhood Nuisance

SandBar Printer-Friendly Article
SandBar 8:2, July, 2009 Recommended citation: Proctor , Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against Neighborhood Nuisance , 8:2 SandBar 20 (2009). Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against Neighborhood Nuisance St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. v. Barrette, [2008] 299 D.L.R. 4th 385, 2008 SSC 64 (Can.). *Jonathan Proctor, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law* The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that a factory was a nuisance to those living nearby, despite the plant’s compliance with local laws and regulations. The case hinged on whether, under Quebec’s system of civil law, neighborhood disturbance claims must be based on fault or if there exists “no-fault” liability.1 In other words, the court had to decide whether to “recognize or reject a liability scheme based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim rather than on the conduct of the person who allegedly caused them.”2 St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) operated a cement plant whose manufacturing process produced dust, odors, and noise that drifted to neighboring properties. Several property owners brought a private nuisance action seeking damages for interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties. Generally, Quebec law recognizes that an entity may exercise its rights so long as they do not infringe unjustly upon the rights of another. Therefore, provided SLC did not intend to cause injury to nearby residents and did not exercise its rights to operate in “an excessive and unreasonable manner,”3 SLC would not be held liable under “fault-based” liability. Although SLC was not liable for such a fault and strove to “comply with the relevant standards in operating its plant,”4 the trial court did find that SLC’s neighbors suffered from excessive and abnormal annoyances due to the plant’s “emissions of dust, odours [sic] and noise.”5 The Supreme Court of Canada examined the right of ownership with respect to its effects upon neighbors and found that the obligation not to injure one’s neighbors “exists even in the absence of fault.”6 This limit on the right of ownership “relates to the result of the owner’s act rather than to the owner’s conduct.”7 In agreement with the trial court’s decision and supported by case law, comparative law, and general policy considerations, the Court held that no-fault liability applies to neighborhood annoyances and ordered SLC to pay damages to the class action members.8 SLC’s claim that it enjoyed immunity from such liability based upon a statute authorizing its activity ultimately failed to persuade the court. Though the statute in question authorized the plant’s operation, “it in no way exempted SLC from the application of the ordinary law.”9 The Court’s holding will make it easier for property owners in Canada to recover damages resulting from factory pollution. Endnotes 1. St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. v. Barrette, [2008] 299 D.L.R. 4th 385, 2008 SSC 64 at B6 19 (Can.). 2. Id. at B6 20 (emphasis added). 3. Id. at B6 25. 4. Id. at B6 11. 5. Id. 6. Id. at B6 48 (citing Katz v. Reitz, [1973] C.A. 230, 237 (Can.) (emphasis added)). 7. Id. at B6 86. 8. Id. 9. Id. at B6 98.
Phone (662) 915-7775 • Fax (662) 915-5267 • 256 Kinard Hall, Wing E, University, MS 38677-1848 Return to SandBar Index Page

SandBar 8:2, July, 2009
Recommended citation: Proctor , Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against Neighborhood Nuisance , 8:2 SandBar 20 (2009).

St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. v. Barrette, [2008] 299 D.L.R. 4th 385, 2008 SSC 64 (Can.).

Jonathan Proctor, 3L, University of Mississippi School of Law

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that a factory was a nuisance to those living nearby, despite the plant’s compliance with local laws and regulations. The case hinged on whether, under Quebec’s system of civil law, neighborhood disturbance claims must be based on fault or if there exists “no-fault” liability.1 In other words, the court had to decide whether to “recognize or reject a liability scheme based on the extent of the annoyances suffered by the victim rather than on the conduct of the person who allegedly caused them.”2
     St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) operated a cement plant whose manufacturing process produced dust, odors, and noise that drifted to neighboring properties. Several property owners brought a private nuisance action seeking damages for interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties.
     Generally, Quebec law recognizes that an entity may exercise its rights so long as they do not infringe unjustly upon the rights of another. Therefore, provided SLC did not intend to cause injury to nearby residents and did not exercise its rights to operate in “an excessive and unreasonable manner,”3 SLC would not be held liable under “fault-based” liability. Although SLC was not liable for such a fault and strove to “comply with the relevant standards in operating its plant,”4 the trial court did find that SLC’s neighbors suffered from excessive and abnormal annoyances due to the plant’s “emissions of dust, odours [sic] and noise.”5
     The Supreme Court of Canada examined the right of ownership with respect to its effects upon neighbors and found that the obligation not to injure one’s neighbors “exists even in the absence of fault.”6 This limit on the right of ownership “relates to the result of the owner’s act rather than to the owner’s conduct.”7 In agreement with the trial court’s decision and supported by case law, comparative law, and general policy considerations, the Court held that no-fault liability applies to neighborhood annoyances and ordered SLC to pay damages to the class action members.8
     SLC’s claim that it enjoyed immunity from such liability based upon a statute authorizing its activity ultimately failed to persuade the court. Though the statute in question authorized the plant’s operation, “it in no way exempted SLC from the application of the ordinary law.”9 The Court’s holding will make it easier for property owners in Canada to recover damages resulting from factory pollution.
Endnotes
1. St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. v. Barrette, [2008] 299 D.L.R. 4th 385, 2008 SSC 64 at B6 19 (Can.).
2. Id. at B6 20 (emphasis added).
3. Id. at B6 25.
4. Id. at B6 11.
5. Id.
6. Id. at B6 48 (citing Katz v. Reitz, [1973] C.A. 230, 237 (Can.) (emphasis added)).
7. Id. at B6 86.
8. Id.
9. Id. at B6 98.