Les Protopapas

Appeal from a trial judgment in a neighbour dispute involving counterclaims for nuisance and invasion of privacy.

The trial judge found that the respondents' use of video cameras did not constitute nuisance or invasion of privacy, and that the appellant's conduct amounted to nuisance.

The appellant, acting in person, challenged the trial judge's findings on multiple grounds, including credibility determinations and allegations of bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment in all respects.

Following a 7-day trial regarding a neighbourhood dispute, the successful defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim sought costs of $75,972.99 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that their Rule 49 offer to settle was not strictly beaten at trial, and the unsuccessful party's conduct was not so reprehensible as to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57, the court fixed costs payable to the successful parties at $47,194.81.

This case involved a protracted and acrimonious neighbour dispute between the Johnsons and Jeffrey Cline, primarily concerning counterclaims for nuisance, harassment, intimidation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution.

The court found Cline's actions, including constant monitoring, unfounded police complaints, and verbal abuse, constituted actionable nuisance.

Cline's counterclaim for invasion of privacy, nuisance, and negligence was dismissed, with the court finding his complaints unreasonable and his evidence not credible due to his obsession with the Johnsons.

The Johnsons were awarded general damages for nuisance and mental distress, and an injunction was granted restraining Cline from interfering with their property and communicating with them.

The claim for malicious prosecution was dismissed due to a failure to establish absence of reasonable and probable cause.