In the recent case of Allen v MacDougall, 2019 ONSC 1939, a neighbour applied for a court order authorizing the destruction of a maple tree growing amid two Toronto properties.
The Ontario Superior Court refused.
In its decision, the Court clarified the applicable test for nuisance and confirmed that “the tendency of courts today is that trees are not lightly ordered removed on the basis of being a nuisance.”
Facts
The large maple tree sat jointly on the land of two neighbours. According to s. 10(2) of The Forestry Act (“Act”), the maple is therefore owned by both neighbours:
“Every tree whose trunk is growing on the boundary between adjoining lands is the common property of the owners of the adjoining lands.”
The Applicants, as part of their home renovations and extensions, wanted the tree chopped down. The Applicants claimed that their intended home addition on the north side of their property required them to excavate deep into the “tree protection zone.”
The Respondents refused and the Applicants applied to the court for an order declaring the tree a nuisance and authorizing its destruction. (It is a criminal offense to destroy a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owners, per s. 10(3) of the Act.)
Law
In Antrim Truck Centre v Ontario (Minister of Transportation), the Supreme Court of Canada recently stated that a private nuisance consists of “an interference with the claimant’s use or enjoyment of land that is both substantial and unreasonable.”
Substantial Interference
The first element of the test – substantial interference – is a threshold test.
The Supreme Court of Canada has defined substantial interference as “inconveniences that materially interfere with ordinary comfort as defined according to the standards held by those of plain and sober tastes” (Tock v St. John’s Metropolitan Area Board) and that are “not trivial annoyances” (St. Lawrence Cement Inc. v Barrette).
Unreasonableness
The second element of the test – unreasonableness – is analyzed from a mutual point of view. As the Ontario Court of Appeal has stated, the reasonableness of a person’s conduct must be analyzed considering the fact that the person has a neighbour (N.C.C. et al v. Pugliese et al.).
Analysis
After finding that the threshold question of substantial interference was satisfied, the Court focused its analysis on the reasonableness requirement.
The Court analyzed the unreasonableness element in light of the potential availability of alternative designs – e.g., constructing the home addition on the other side of the property or building on top of the land without excavating. The Court held that it was not the Respondents’ obligation to show the availability of these alternatives to establish the reasonableness of the tree’s continued existence. Rather, the onus was on the Applicants to demonstrate the unavailability of these alternatives, which they failed to do.
Conclusion
The Court held that this failure was fatal to the application and refused to order the destruction of the maple.
If you require legal advice and representation in respect to an injunction, real estate dispute or cottage litigation, please contact us for an initial consultation.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
One Comment on “Court Considers Nuisance Test for Neighbours’ Tree in Allen v MacDougall”
I live in a 73 floors condo in downtown. I have been requesting the Board and Property Management to ban the use of cannabis in the building. The Board replied to me that there is no interest for them to do anything. When the issue was first brought up in Nov 2018, they sent the survey to all owners. They told us the majority of vote are in favour of banning. That was in Jan 2019. In May, when I follow up again, they changed 180 degree and said that the Broad is not interested to take any action due to only 15% votes for banning. The survey responses were insufficient to action anything. I am still sending my complains to the Board every week. Is there any thing we can do to sue the property management the negligence?