Sharon P. Ilavsky

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action against their neighbours.

The action sought injunctive relief and damages for invasion of privacy from surveillance cameras, nuisance from speakers and floodlights, trespass from fence construction, and abuse of process from a peace bond application.

The trial judge found no credible evidence of invasion of privacy, no established nuisance, no proven trespass, and no abuse of process.

The appellants alleged the trial judge failed to decide on the merits, provided inadequate reasons, and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the reasons adequate, credibility findings entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

This case involved a protracted neighbourhood dispute between two families, the Roberts (plaintiffs) and the Assis/Buitendyks (defendants), concerning issues such as tree removal, alleged trespasses, surveillance cameras, bright lights, loud music, and verbal altercations.

The plaintiffs sought damages for trespass, invasion of privacy, nuisance, and abuse of process related to a peace bond application.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for tree removal and most alleged trespasses were not substantiated or were petty.

Claims for invasion of privacy due to surveillance cameras were dismissed as police found no concerns and no credible audio surveillance evidence existed.

Nuisance claims regarding lights, music, and hockey pucks were dismissed due to lack of communication from plaintiffs and insufficient severity.

The abuse of process claim regarding the peace bond was also dismissed, as the defendants genuinely felt threatened and followed a legal process.

The court emphasized the immaturity of both parties and the failure to pursue mediation.

All plaintiffs' claims were dismissed.

Neighbouring landowners disputed ownership of a narrow strip of land along their shared boundary.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title based on adverse possession prior to the properties entering the land titles system in 1995 and claimed damages for trespass and removal of trees.

The court reviewed the requirements for adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act, including actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion for the statutory period.

The evidence showed the plaintiffs’ activities—primarily mowing grass and maintaining the area—were not inconsistent with the defendants’ use of the land as a buffer between properties and did not establish exclusive possession or an intention to exclude.

The court also rejected arguments of mutual mistake regarding the boundary line.

The plaintiffs failed to prove the elements required for possessory title.