The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action for nuisance, negligence, and trespass against his neighbour.
The dispute arose when the respondent cut down boundary cedars to build a fence for the safety of a special needs child, after the appellant unreasonably refused consent.
The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the overgrown cedars constituted a nuisance, substantially and unreasonably interfering with the respondent's use of his property.
The court confirmed that where a boundary tree is a nuisance, the Forestry Act does not prevent a co-owner from abating the nuisance through self-help if the other owner unreasonably withholds consent.
The appeal was dismissed.
