I know many stories about neighbours not getting along, but the recent decision of the Ontario Court in Desjardins v. Blick is quite remarkable because the feud has roots going back four decades.
The parties are two couples who have been next door neighbours since 1968. Unfortunately their relationship deteriorated over the location of a garage, to the point of threatened or attempted violence. They are all in their seventies.
In 1968, Lucien Desjardins and Jacqueline Desjardins built a garage with a concrete slab floor on their property. Ten years later, the couple next door, Ahti Blick and Maija Blick told the Desjardins that they thought the garage encroached onto their property. They told the Desjardins to move the garage, which the Desjardins were unable and unwilling to do. The Blicks then decided to remove the soil along the side of the garage creating a trench and exposing the concrete slab. Starting in 2002 for the next 6 years, they also filled the trench with water, causing significant damage to the floor of the garage.
There were numerous other incidents provoking the Desjardins which caused them to notify the police and eventually to start the civil law suit.
The Desjardins claimed damages for the deliberate action by the Blicks to erode soil beneath their garage and along their property line. They also claimed the cost required to construct a retaining wall on their land to prevent further weather erosion, punitive damages, their out of pocket expenses and costs of the action. The Desjardins requested a permanent injunction against the Blicks prohibiting any further trespass and erosion to their property and the right to attend on the Blicks’ property within a defined area to carry out the repair work.
The Bicks defended the claim, denied any wrong doing and counterclaimed $10,000 for trespass to their property. They sought a mandatory injunction to oblige the Desjardins to remove a slight overhang of their garage eves trough over the Blicks property.
The Court awarded $38,940 to repair the garage; an additional $18,660 to construct a poured concrete retaining wall; declaratory and injunctive relief as requested by the plaintiffs and $5,000.00 in punitive damages. The Court reserved a costs award because the Bicks were self-represented and asked the parties to appear again to settle that issue.
By way of explanation, punitive damages are payable by the Blicks to the Desjardins as a punishment for their conduct. The Court cited the Supreme Court of Canada which commented in an earlier case that punitive damages will be “imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour”. The Desjardins had asked for punitive damages in the range of $25,000.00-$50,000.00 and it is noteworthy that the Court made such a conservative award of damages in the present case.
Although the law suit has been a very expensive exercise for the Blicks, it cannot be said to have been a rewarding experience for the Desjardins. Apart for a small punitive award after decades of stress and provocation, the Court has restored the Desjardins to the position they would have been in had there not been a problem with their neighbours.
I think that I will drop by this evening to say hello to my own neighbours and to wish them well. It is a lot better to get along than it is to win a case like this!
To read the text of the decision, follow this link.