In Toronto’s upscale Forest Hill neighbourhood, two sets of neighbours have been acting rather unneighbourly. The neighbours on one side of the street accuse their counterparts of deliberately and maliciously letting their dog relieve itself on their lawn, photographing their house, parking their car at their curb, taking audio recordings of conversations on the street, and making rude gestures. On the other side of the street, the neighbours admit to being intentionally annoying, but defend their actions as perfectly legal and, having to face rude neighbours every day, even justifiable.
Petty neighbourly grievances are bound to be a fact of life in the city where residents live in close proximity to each other. What sets this particular neighbourly grievance apart is that the parties lawyered up and went to court.
The Honourable Justice Morgan did not mince words in his reasons for dismissing the claims. He told the parties that they were acting like children and, in his view, they, “do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher.” He summarized the meritless claims in memorable language:
“… There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour’s garbage can, and there is no claim for letting Rover water the neighbour’s hedge. Likewise, there is no claim for looking at the neighbour’s pretty house, parking a car legally but with malintent, engaging in faux photography on a public street, raising objections at a municipal hearing, walking on the sidewalk with dictaphone in hand, or just plain thinking badly of a person who lives nearby.”
On one level, this is a trivial and amusing case. However, on a deeper level, it stresses an important principle and sends a serious message to litigants in highly emotional civil litigation.
The judge excoriated the parties for wasting a day of overcrowded court time at the taxpayer’s expense. He reminded the parties that the law does not provide for compensation for nasty, stress-inducing conduct, at least not without a genuine underlying legal claim. The courts should be reserved for serious claims. In dismissing the case, the court refused to award costs to either party, saying that each side deserved to bear its own costs.
Perhaps the message in the case is best summed up by the judge’s comment that the plaintiffs in this case were their own worst adversaries. They made frivolous complaints, compelled four of their neighbours to testify as witnesses, and used up precious court time even when it ought to have been clear that there was no legal claim to pursue. This case therefore stands as a warning to all litigants to be objective, rational and well-grounded when decided whether to litigate, and not to let emotion cloud better judgment.
Menu
Written by: WEL Partners
Posted on: May 22, 2014
Categories: Commentary
In Toronto’s upscale Forest Hill neighbourhood, two sets of neighbours have been acting rather unneighbourly. The neighbours on one side of the street accuse their counterparts of deliberately and maliciously letting their dog relieve itself on their lawn, photographing their house, parking their car at their curb, taking audio recordings of conversations on the street, and making rude gestures. On the other side of the street, the neighbours admit to being intentionally annoying, but defend their actions as perfectly legal and, having to face rude neighbours every day, even justifiable.
Petty neighbourly grievances are bound to be a fact of life in the city where residents live in close proximity to each other. What sets this particular neighbourly grievance apart is that the parties lawyered up and went to court.
The Honourable Justice Morgan did not mince words in his reasons for dismissing the claims. He told the parties that they were acting like children and, in his view, they, “do not need a judge; what they need is a rather stern kindergarten teacher.” He summarized the meritless claims in memorable language:
“… There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour’s garbage can, and there is no claim for letting Rover water the neighbour’s hedge. Likewise, there is no claim for looking at the neighbour’s pretty house, parking a car legally but with malintent, engaging in faux photography on a public street, raising objections at a municipal hearing, walking on the sidewalk with dictaphone in hand, or just plain thinking badly of a person who lives nearby.”
On one level, this is a trivial and amusing case. However, on a deeper level, it stresses an important principle and sends a serious message to litigants in highly emotional civil litigation.
The judge excoriated the parties for wasting a day of overcrowded court time at the taxpayer’s expense. He reminded the parties that the law does not provide for compensation for nasty, stress-inducing conduct, at least not without a genuine underlying legal claim. The courts should be reserved for serious claims. In dismissing the case, the court refused to award costs to either party, saying that each side deserved to bear its own costs.
Perhaps the message in the case is best summed up by the judge’s comment that the plaintiffs in this case were their own worst adversaries. They made frivolous complaints, compelled four of their neighbours to testify as witnesses, and used up precious court time even when it ought to have been clear that there was no legal claim to pursue. This case therefore stands as a warning to all litigants to be objective, rational and well-grounded when decided whether to litigate, and not to let emotion cloud better judgment.
Author
View all posts