Case Brief Wiki


Ballast Grounds Fisheries had local residents sign a document indicating they would not be opposed to the placement of a freezer on the wharf in Alder Point. The representative assured the residents that the freezer would not be as loud as a ceiling fan or a kitchen refrigerator, Ballast installed the industrial freezer which was running almost constantly from April to August. LeBlanc found the noise objectionable his nearby house, especially when the windows were open (which was frequently in the summer months). Other harbour noise is infrequent. LeBlanc sought an interim injunction to prevent the freezer from running while the issue was at trial.


  1. Is it reasonable to allow a nuisance to continue on an interim basis until trial?


Injunction denied.


In deciding whether to grant the injunction, the court applied a three part test:

  1. Is there a serious question to be tried?
  2. Will the applicants suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted?
  3. Does the balance of convenience weigh in favour of granting the injunction?

Edwards J, after visiting the site, found that there was without a doubt a serious question to be tried (that of nuisance) but that there was not irreparable harm to the applicants (they could be monetarily compensated) and that if the freezer was shut down Ballast would not be able to operate, thereby giving Ballast the balance of convenience.


This case was settled out of court between the parties.