The Rural Voice, 1992-12, Page 18One of the nicest
things about
Christmas is
letting our
customers know
we care. A
Merry Christmas
and a
Happy New Year
from
Ron, Betty & Staff at
K.M.M.
FARM DRAINAGE
Walton 887-6428
9
Merry Christmas. find the happiest of
holidays to you and yours. We greatly
appreciate having good friends and
customers [ik.. you.
Canadian
Distributor
for
Pennwood's
Equine Supreme
From Weaning Through Maturity
A special blending of vitamins, minerals,
amino acids and electrolytes formulated
to bring out your horses' full potential.
DEALER INQUIRES WELCOME
Ask for Cec Horton
CARSON'S FEED & SUPPLY
and
CARSON'S FARMS
& AUCTIONS,
l&
Hwy. 86 E, R. R. 3, Listowel
ID N4W 3G8
Phone (519) 291-1094
Fax (519) 291-5065 0
14 THE RURAL VOICE
Agrilaw
Living beside a dump
Can a garbage dump operated
under provincial authorization
constitute a nuisance? What
remedies are available to adjacent
landowners to
control or
prevent its
continued
operation? A
court in Ontario
has considered
these issues and
has concluded
that, despite
provincial
authorization, a
garbage dump
may be
prohibited from
continued
operation where
it is being operated in a manner
which interferes with the lives and
well-being of neighbours.
The garbage dump, or landfill site,
in question had been operated for a
number of years pursuant to a
provincial certificate of approval.
The plaintiffs in the case were
adjacent landowners who carried on
the business of organic farming.
They complained that plastic from
the dump was distributed by the wind
over their fields. Odour from
uncovered garbage, hogs which died
after eating refuse, and rotted
produce delivered from time to time
as feed for the hogs was so offensive
that the plaintiffs could not remain
out-of-doors on their land.
Machinery to pack the garbage was
operated at irregular hours interfering
with the plaintiffs' peaceful
enjoyment of their land. Dust from
trucks delivering garbage was
deposited on the plaintiffs' farm, and
fire and smoke from garbage and
brush fires also caused distress to the
plaintiffs.
Although there was no evidence
that the dump constituted a hazard to
public health and safety, the court
held that the evidence established
that, at least, the site was poorly
managed and that the operation of the
landfill interfered with the plaintiffs'
enjoyment of their property and its
use in a real and substantial manner.
Citing English authority, the court
determined that relief is available to
adjacent landowners in such
circumstances where the conduct of
the defendant is:
.. such as to be real interference
with the comfort or convenience
of living according to the
standards of the average man ..
Moreover, the discomfort must be
substantial, not merely with
reference to the plaintiff; it must
be of such a degree that it would
be substantial to any person
occupying the plaintiff's premises,
irrespective of his position in life,
age, or state of health; it must be
'an inconvenience materially
interfering with the ordinary
comfort physically of human
existence, not merely according to
the elegant or dainty mode and
habitats of living, but according to
plain and sober and simple notions
among the English (Canadian)
people'."
Where an adjacent landowner
meets these criteria, relief may be
available, both in the form of an
injunction to prevent continued
operation of the landfill, and
monetary damages arising from loss
of production, clean-up costs, and the
disturbance and interference with
enjoyment of property rights. In
addition, a plaintiff may recover
punitive damages where the evidence
establishes that the defendants had
consciously and deliberately operated
the dump with callous disregard for
the plaintiff's rights. With respect to
the award of such damages, the court
stated:
"Not only must the law not
sanction the deliberate and callous
disregard by the powerful of the
weaker person's rights, the law
must do what it can to ensure, by
whatever means there are at its
disposal, that the legal rights of a
citizen are protected from the
tyranny of another. Many cases
have said that exemplary damages
must not merely amount to a
license fee or to a reasonable cost
or expense of doing business.