From: Lewis N Klar <lklar@ualberta.ca>
To: Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>
CC: Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca>
obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 21/05/2014 15:02:11 UTC
Subject: Re: ODG - Scope of Tort Law

I don't think it could amount to a private nuisance, as the interference occurred on the plaintiff's land and did not emanate from outside of it. As well what property interest (other than trespass) occurred to constitute a nuisance?

You have to realize that I am sitting in an airport with two hours to kill and thus have time to ruminate on such matters.. I am sure most of you have better things to do..

sorry,

Lewis


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Gerard Sadlier <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com> wrote:
Lewis, Stephen,

The joke is clearly on me for replying to the list as a whole accidentally.

Absolutely right on the trespass to chattles point.

Assuming the trash bin was on the neighbour's property when the
unauthorized deposits were made, could this not amount to private
nuisance?

Regards


Ger


On 5/21/14, Lewis N Klar <lklar@ualberta.ca> wrote:
> Or trespass to chattels?
>
> Lewis
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Gerard Sadlier
> <gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> At the risk of humourlessness, can the following statement really be
>> true? "There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour's
>> garbage can ..." - Whither trespass to land?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ger
>>
>> On 5/21/14, Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca> wrote:
>> > For those needing the refresher, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
>> told
>> > us yesterday that:
>> >
>> > "There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour's
>> > garbage
>> > can, and there is no claim for letting Rover water the neighbour's
>> > hedge.
>> > Likewise, there is no claim for looking at the neighbour's pretty
>> > house,
>> > parking a car legally but with malintent, engaging in faux photography
>> on a
>> > public street, raising objections at a municipal hearing, walking on
>> > the
>> > sidewalk with dictaphone in hand, or just plain thinking badly of a
>> person
>> > who lives nearby."
>> >
>> > The court noted, in the same vein, that:
>> >
>> > "As I explained to Plaintiffs' counsel at the hearing, a court cannot
>> order
>> > the Defendants to be nice to the Plaintiffs. Litigation must focus on
>> legal
>> > wrongs and legal rights - commodities which are in remarkably short
>> supply
>> > in this action. As my colleague Perell J. put it in High Parklane
>> Consulting
>> > Inc. v  Royal Group Technologies Ltd., [2007] OJ No 107 (SCJ), at para
>> 36,
>> > "[i]t is trite to say that making a living is a stressful activity and
>> that
>> > much of life can be nasty and brutish. Tort law does not provide
>> > compensation for all stress-causing and nasty conduct that individuals
>> may
>> > suffer at the hands of another...""
>> >
>> > See (for an entertaining read) Morland-Jones v Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061
>> > available at http://canlii.ca/t/g6wvd.
>> >
>> > Stephen
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > [image: Western Law]
>> >
>> > Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
>> > Goodmans LLP Faculty Fellow in Legal Ethics 2013-14
>> > Faculty of Law, Western University
>> > (519) 661-2111 ext 88433
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lewis N. Klar, Q.C.,
> Professor of Law,
> University of Alberta.
> (780) 492-7408
>




--
Lewis N. Klar, Q.C.,
Professor of Law,
University of Alberta.
(780) 492-7408