Berryhill v. Trendle, 2026 ONSC 4326

CITATION: Berryhill v. Trendle, 2026 ONSC 4326

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00001605-0000, CV-22-00000196-0000

DATE: 2026/07/24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ANNETTE BERRYHILL and MICHAEL BERRYHILL

Plaintiffs

– and –

DENNIS LEO TRENDLE

Defendant

AND BETWEEN:

DOINITA ROSCANIUS

Plaintiff

-and-

ANNETTE BERRYHILL and MICHAEL BERRYHILL

Defendants

Brian R. Kelly, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants, Annette Berryhill and Michael Berryhill

Steven D. Gadbois, Counsel for the Defendant, Dennis Leo Trendle, and the Plaintiff, Doinita Roscanius

HEARD: 12, 15, 16, 17, June 2026

GIBSON J.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

“Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot that it do singe yourself”

Shakespeare, Henry VIII, Act 1, Scene 1

1The Plaintiffs, Annette Berryhill and Michael Berryhill, live in their house at 66 Margaret Avenue South in Waterloo, Ontario. The Defendant Dennis Trendle and his partner Doinita Roscanius (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) live in their house on the adjacent property at 64 Margaret Avenue South. For many years the two couples were friends and enjoyed many activities together. Then, in 2019, things went wrong. The parties have since been engaged in a bitter dispute for seven years over the encroachment of a small driveway concrete pad extension, first poured in 2003, across the property line between their two properties.

2This dispute, although it might objectively be described as trivial, has become almost Shakespearian in its tragic effect of poisoning the relationship between the parties and leading each to endure years of rancour, culminating in this litigation. This misery has been largely self-inflicted. There were numerous ways that this dispute could have been resolved by acting reasonably. Each of the parties has acted badly during the course of the dispute, in ways that unnecessarily aggravated and prolonged it. Each has engaged in petty provocations.

3Dennis Trendle had a concrete pad extension to his driveway poured in 2003. In 2019, the Berryhills became convinced that the concrete pad extension encroached significantly on their property and demanded that it be removed. This belief may have originated in an aerial Google Maps photograph which depicted lot lines superimposed on an aerial photograph (which was a general depiction and not a survey).

4The Plaintiffs issued a Claim (CV-21-00001605-0000) in December 2021, seeking General, Compensatory, Exemplary and Punitive Damages in the sum of $70,000, special damages in the sum of $25,000, an interim and a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on the Plaintiffs’ property, a Declaration that the Plaintiffs are free of any easement or right of way, interest, and costs.

5Dennis Trendle issued a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in February 2022. The Plaintiffs provided a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in May 2022.

6Doinita Roscanius issued a separate Statement of Claim (CV-22-00000196-0000) in February 2022. The Berryhills provided a Statement of Defence to this Claim in May 2022.

7The two matters were ordered to be consolidated and tried together by the Order of Valente J. dated March 5, 2024.

8Part way through the trial, acting on the sensible advice of their lawyers, the parties agreed a Consent which substantially narrowed the grounds of dispute left for the Court to resolve. This provided:

1. The Plaintiffs, Annette Berryhill and Michael Berryhill (hereinafter “the Berryhill’s”) withdraw their Claim in its entirety save and except paragraph 1(a) of their Statement of Claim, being general damages regarding loss of quiet enjoyment and ancillary matters hereto in the sum of $70,000.

2. The Defendant, Dennis Leo Trendle, and the Plaintiff by consolidated action, Doinita Roscanius, (hereinafter “the Trendle’s”), withdraw their Claim in its entirety save and except paragraph 31(a) being acceptance of property line, and 31(d) being $150,000 in diminution of property value.

Evidence

9Two witnesses gave evidence for the Plaintiffs: Annette Berryhill and Michael Berryhill.

10Six witnesses gave evidence for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Dennis Trendle and Doinita Roscanius themselves; Dillon Doucette, a real estate agent who looked at the property at 64 Margaret Avenue South in the fall of 2022; Ronald Mak, an Ontario Land Surveyor; Nathan Steffler, a real estate agent; and Norman Machel, who provide a property valuation.

11In addition, a number of photographs, videos and documents were made exhibits in evidence. The most significant of these was the Plan of Survey produced by Van Harten Surveying dated November 6, 2020, made Exhibit 2 in evidence.

Assessment

12The Plaintiffs submit that their case is founded in nuisance and loss of quiet enjoyment of their property. They contend that both Plaintiffs have been significantly impacted by nuisance in many ways, mentally, physically and emotionally. They rely on the case of Delavalle v. Acciavatti, 2024 ONSC 5137 for the proposition that sustained trespass to property can constitute nuisance:

[23] A nuisance consists of an interference with the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable: Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation), 2013 SCC at paras. 18 and 19.

[24] The legal test for determining whether an interference rises to the level of nuisance, sets out that the interference with the owner’s use and enjoyment of land must be; (1) non-trivial; and (2) unreasonable in all the circumstances. In determining whether the interference is unreasonable, the Court will assess certain factors such as the nature, severity, and duration of the interference, the character of the neighbourhood, the sensitivity of the Plaintiffs, and the use and utility of the Defendant’s activities: Antrim at para. 26.

13The Berryhills have not established nuisance or loss of quiet enjoyment. The encroachment of the cement pad by a few inches, and the activities of Mr. Trendle in momentarily stepping onto their property, were trivial. Nor were they unreasonable in the circumstances. Moreover, the encroaching portion of the cement pad has been removed.

14The Berryhills have acted unreasonably throughout this dispute and there is no basis upon which to grant their claim for general damages. They refused to accept the result of the survey and persisted on an unreasonable and contrived basis for the acceptance of a property line of their own devising, spraying orange paint lines which they mistakenly insisted long past the point of reasonableness marked the property line between the two properties. Annette Berryhill in particular is the author of her own misfortune in her claimed emotional distress, which appears to have originated in her irrational obsession with the property line dispute.

15The encroachment of the cement pad onto the 66 Margaret Avenue property was caused by the bending of a wooden form board when the pad was poured, resulting in a curved portion which encroached by a small amount onto the Berryhills’ property. After protracted dispute, Mr. Trendle removed the encroaching portion. The momentary entries of Mr. Trendle into the space between the buildings on the two properties to access materials on the side of his garage were transient and not unreasonable.

16Regarding the claim for $150,000 arising from a diminution of property value of 64 Margaret Avenue, Ms. Roscanius has failed to conclusively demonstrate that any decrease was due to the actions of the Berryhills. There was some evidence that the estimated market value of the property may have declined from $1,000,000 on 1 January 2022, to $850,000 on 7 May 2024. However, the property has not been sold or listed for sale to establish its current market value. There have been substantial variations in the general real estate market over the past years since the Covid-19 Pandemic. The claim that Mr. Trendle was unable to sell 64 Margaret during advantageous market conditions due to the existence of this dispute has not been substantiated. There is no reasonable basis upon which to establish causation or to assess the damages claimed by Ms. Roscanius.

17The dispute between the parties, and its impact upon their relationship, is most unfortunate. In order to diminish the possibility for future controversy between them, the Court will make a Declaration regarding where the property line between the two properties lies.

Order

18The Court Orders that:

1. The Plaintiffs (Berryhills’) claim for general damages is dismissed.

2. The claim of Dennis Trendle and Doinita Roscanius for $150,000 damages for diminution of property value is dismissed.

19The Court Declares that:

1. The property line between the properties at 66 and 64 Margaret Avenue South, Waterloo, Ontario, is that depicted in Exhibit 2, the Surveyor’s Real Property Report Plan of Survey provided by Van Harten Surveying Inc., dated November 6, 2020.

Costs

20Each of the parties shall bear their own costs in this litigation.

M. Gibson J.

Date: July 24, 2026

CITATION: Berryhill v. Trendle, 2026 ONSC 4326