The applicants sought an order authorizing the removal of a mature boundary tree shared with the respondents to facilitate a home extension.
The applicants argued the tree constituted a nuisance because its protection zone prevented their proposed construction.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the tree did not interfere with the applicants' current use and enjoyment of their property, but only with their desired enhancement.
The applicants failed to demonstrate that the tree was a substantial and unreasonable interference or that there were no reasonable alternative designs for their renovation.
