## Facts

- Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. operated a truck-stop complex on Highway 17 in Ontario and depended on direct highway access and visibility.
- Ontario built a new section of Highway 417 parallel to Highway 17 and opened it in September 2004, diverting traffic away from Highway 17.
- The project left Antrim’s property with indirect, substantially more difficult access and markedly reduced visibility to motorists.
- Antrim alleged the change caused significant, permanent interference with access, major loss of business, and a reduction in the property’s market value.
- No portion of Antrim’s land was expropriated; the claim sought compensation for injurious affection without a taking under Ontario’s Expropriations Act.

## Issues

1. How should “unreasonable interference” in private nuisance be assessed when the interference results from construction of public infrastructure serving an important public purpose?
2. Did the reviewing court err by overturning the administrative tribunal’s nuisance analysis and reweighing the competing public and private interests?
3. Were the statutory requirements for injurious affection without a taking satisfied, entitling Antrim to compensation?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Antrim’s appeal and set aside the Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgment.
- The Court restored the Ontario Municipal Board’s compensation award (approximately $393,000) for business losses and diminution in property value.
- The Court held the interference with Antrim’s use and enjoyment of land was unreasonable in nuisance, notwithstanding the highway’s public utility.
- The Court held the Court of Appeal improperly substituted its own balancing assessment for the tribunal’s and failed to apply proper deference.

## Legal Principles

- Injurious affection without a taking requires: (1) damage resulting from construction of works under statutory authority; (2) damage that would be actionable at common law but for that statutory authority (commonly nuisance); and (3) a causal connection between construction and the loss.
- Private nuisance turns on unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land, determined by balancing factors including severity of harm, neighbourhood character, duration, plaintiff sensitivity, and the utility of the defendant’s conduct.
- Public utility is a relevant factor but does not immunize public authorities; the core inquiry is whether it is reasonable to expect the claimant to bear the interference without compensation.
- The reasonableness balancing applies in all nuisance cases, including where harm is physical or material.
- An administrative tribunal’s application of nuisance principles to the facts is generally a mixed question of fact and law and is entitled to deference on review.

## Conclusion

Because the highway construction imposed a serious, permanent, and disproportionate burden on Antrim’s property and business, the interference amounted to actionable nuisance and met the statutory requirements for injurious affection without a taking, warranting compensation.


Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transp.), [2013] 1 S.C.R. 594 (Can. 2013)