What is the test for public nuisance in the context of anti-abortion picketing?

The picketing of a particular home and a particular family is prima facie a private and public nuisance in the circumstances. The protestors’ intentions clearly include the infliction of a nuisance. The doctors were warned before the picketing commenced that their homes would be picketed if they did not cease providing abortion services. The picketers were, therefore, fully aware of the objectionable nature of their conduct and intended their presence to be invasive as described in Frisby v. Schultz, supra. This is not the case of a slum landlord who has no office location to be picketed or of someone like a politician who may have, in certain circumstances, a potentially diminished expectation of privacy even at his or her home. Moreover, the nuisance arises not from a single episode of picketing but from the frequent and co-ordinated presence of picketers at one particular home in one particular neighbourhood or the reasonable apprehension of such frequency.