Professor Lewis Klar criticizes the Canadian approach to the tort of public nuisance forbeing illogical and incoherent. The authors agree with Klar’s assessment of the current stateof public nuisance law, but argue that insights drawn from the House of Lords decision inTate & Lyle Industries Ltd. v. Greater London Council offer a way forward. Byconceptualizing the tort of public nuisance as a cause of action that protects subjects fromsuffering actual loss that is consequential on the violation of their passage and fishing rightsover public property, Tate & Lyle offers a coherent and restrained formulation of the tortof public nuisance. This article examines the Tate & Lyle approach to public nuisance andapplies it to two infamous Canadian public nuisance cases. It concludes that the coherent,logical approach to public nuisance articulated by the House of Lords in Tate & Lyle shouldbe readopted by Canadian courts.
The Mismatch between Public Nuisance Law and Global Warming
