03/02/2020 [14] 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes I would note that the timing strongly suggests this incident was a motivation for the initial Facebook posts, which were made two days later. In her statement to the Court at the conclusion of the trial, Ms. Van Nes characterized her posting to Facebook as a form of “venting”. The fact that she was shouting and swearing, without provocation, seems to indicate, if not hostility, then at least a great deal of frustration with the state of the relationship with her neighbours, and the timing would appear consistent with her choosing to use Facebook as an outlet to express her feelings concerning same. [15] Given the entry of the default judgment, I take the allegations of fact with respect to the private nuisance claim in the Notice of Civil Claim to be unchallenged, and accept them as true: Sands and Associates Inc. v Dextras, 2009 BCCA 430, at paras. 13-14; and Learmouth v. Statham, 2014 BCSC 19, at para 11. [16] Mr. Pritchard seeks a permanent injunction preventing Ms. Van Nes from keeping her waterfall operating from 10pm until 7am, as well as an award of general damages for his nuisance claim as a whole. Evidence as to Defamation Claim [17] There are three other facts which must be understood as providing context to the Facebook posts. [18] The first is that in response to a request from the municipality that she document her various complaints about the defendant’s family with photographs, Ms. Pritchard took a few photographs and videos of the waterfall and of the defendant’s dog being in her backyard, using her cell phone. The Pritchards do not have, and have not ever had, any form of video surveillance system monitoring the defendant’s property or their own property. [19] The second is that Ms. Pritchard had hung a decorative mirror from the eaves at the rear of her house. This was intended only as a form of feng shui ornamentation. It was not a device to monitor the defendant’s property. [20] The third is that between the parties’ backyard property line and the edge of the waterfall structure closest to the plaintiff’s property, the defendant had positioned a children’s “play centre” with swings, slide and a climbing apparatus. The defendant’s posts, as will be seen, stated that Mr. Pritchard had asked the municipality to require the Van Nes’ to position the play centre closer to his property. Mr. Pritchard denies this, and I accept his evidence. [21] On June 9, 2014, Ms. Van Nes published a Facebook post with two photographs of Mr. Pritchard’s backyard and the aforementioned decorative mirror. Superimposed on the photos were the words: My neighbour has mirrors hanging outside his home…Doug also videotapes my kids in the backyard 24/7! Well Doug … Meet my mirror! [22] She also posted to her Facebook page the following remarks (with punctuation as in the original): https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 4/26