The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim to add a claim in nuisance against the respondent for failing to properly remediate contaminated land before selling it.
The motion judge denied the amendment, finding that a nuisance claim requires the interference to originate from outside the plaintiff's land.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that an essential characteristic of the tort of nuisance is that the alleged nuisance must emanate from somewhere other than the plaintiff's own land.
The appeal was dismissed.
