Hickey et al. v. Electric Reduction Co. of Canada Ltd., (1971) 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246 (NFSC)

• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: October 20, 1971
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1971), 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246 (NFSC)

Hickey v. Elect. Reduction (1971), 2 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 246 (NFSC)

MLB headnote and full text

Hickey et al. v. Electric Reduction Company of Canada Limited

Indexed As: Hickey et al. v. Electric Reduction Co. of Canada Ltd.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

At Trial

Furlong, C.J.

October 20, 1971.

Summary:

The trial court dismissed the action of the plaintiffs in nuisance for damage to their fishing rights as a result of the pollution of Placentia Bay by the defendant. The court stated the difference between a public nuisance, which is a crime and actionable by indictment, and a private nuisance, which is a tort and subject to civil action. Since the rights damaged by the defendant were rights in the public at large and since the plaintiff's damage was not peculiar to them, the trial court held that the pollution was a public nuisance and a private right of action was not sustainable.

Torts - Topic 1315

Nuisance - Defences, public nuisance - Distinction between public and private nuisance - Pollution of ocean bay by industrial plant - Damage to rights of public fishery - Damage not peculiar to plaintiffs - The Newfoundland Supreme Court held pollution of bay public nuisance and private action not sustainable.

Cases Noticed:

McRae v. British Norwegian Whaling Co. Ltd., [1927-31] Nfld. L.R. 274, appld.

Fillion v. N.B. International Paper Co., [1934] 3 D.L.R. 22, folld.

Rose v. Miles, [1814-1823] All E.R. Rep. 580, dist.

SCM (U.K.) Ltd. v. W. J. Whittall & Son Ltd., [1970] 3 All E.R. 245, folld.

Counsel:

Robert Wells and Seamus V. O'Regan, for the Plaintiffs;

Francis J. Ryan, Q.C., for the defendant.