A B.C. judge has issued a decision in a years-long dispute between neighbours that began with a noise complaint over barking dogs, crowing roosters and quacking ducks – awarding $15,000 in damages to the plaintiffs in the case.
A hearing took place over five days in Quesnel earlier this year and Judge Michael J. Brecknell’s ruling was posted online earlier this month.
Mark and Beverly Croxall filed a lawsuit in provincial court in 2022, claiming their previous attempts to resolve their issues with their neighbours – first through conversation and then through bylaw complaints to the regional district about excessive noise and “unauthorized poultry” – had failed.
Further, they alleged that their neighbours, James Laverdure and Carrie Graham, engaged in an escalating and “vindictive” series of “retaliatory acts” after they involved the district and filed the lawsuit.
“They presented extensive evidence of the defendants’ interference with their life, including recordings of barking dogs, crowing roosters, quacking ducks, loud engine revving, horn honking, and stereo music early in the morning meant to wake them up,” Brecknell wrote, summarizing the submissions the Croxalls made in support of their claim.
“They also presented evidence of lights shining, cameras pointing, and recordings being made from the defendant’s property.”
Laverdure and Graham, for their part, filed a counterclaim – seeking damages from their neighbours on a number of grounds and asking for $20,000. All of their claims were dismissed, except one for trespass.
“The defendants presented video evidence of Mr. Croxall trespassing on their property to pick up stones from the grass,” the judge wrote, adding that the trespass “was trivial, innocent, and transitory.” Given that, the court awarded $50 in damages.
The bulk of the damages awarded to the Croxalls – $13,000 – was for nuisance. The legal test for nuisance, the judge’s decision explained, is two-fold. First, a claimant must demonstrate that there was a ” substantial, non-trivial interference with their use and enjoyment of their property.” Second, the court must find that the interference was “unreasonable.”
In this case Brecknell found the Croxalls had, on a balance of probabilities, proven nuisance.
“The dog barking, animal noises, truck engine revving and stereo playing, lights shining into their yard, yard waste burning, and the snow drift left in their driveway by the defendants constituted a substantial interference with their use and enjoyment of their property,” the decision said.
“The interference is, in all of the circumstances, unreasonable. The claimants should not be expected to suffer the interference without compensation.”
The Croxalls also sought punitive damages, which the judge said are rarely awarded at all in nuisance cases. In this case, Brecknell found the Croxalls were entitled.
“The actions of the defendants, and particularly Mr. Laverdure, were, at a minimum, vindictive and malicious. They took calculated and deliberate actions meant to interfere with the claimants’ peaceful use and enjoyment of their property. Punitive damages are necessary and appropriate in these circumstances,” the judge wrote.
“They must be of a level to give the defendants’ pause before committing any further retaliatory actions against the claimants and to provide a warning to others in similar circumstances not to engage in such behaviour,” the decision continued, awarding the Croxalls $2,000.
Because the case was in provincial court, compensation was the only remedy available, the judge noted. If it had proceeded in B.C. Supreme Court, either party could have sought “injunctive relief,” meaning the court could have issued an order requiring either party to “take a specific action or be required to cease a specific action.”
