03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes nuisance claim is largely based on the constant noise emanating from the water cascading over the rocks, which the plaintiff and his wife testified has disrupted their sleep. The plaintiff’s evidence is that the waterfall has run day and night almost continuously since its construction in 2011; there was a brief period in the summer of 2012, when the defendant shut off the flow of water at night after the plaintiff complained to the municipality, but its operation was soon restored to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. [12] The plaintiff testified that during winter months he has been able to mitigate the effect of noise by shutting his windows. However, during the summer months he is left in a dilemma, as, without air conditioning, he is left to choose between closing the windows and overheating or having to endure the constant noise from the waterfalls. [13] After the plaintiff began to complain to the defendant about the waterfalls, their relationship deteriorated. There followed a number of incidents of unneighbourly conduct on the part of the defendant and her family members. The nuisance claim is also based in part on these incidents, which the plaintiff submits were done with the intent of interfering with his use and enjoyment of his property. A detailed recounting of these events is unnecessary, but some description will assist in delineating the extent of the nuisance claim as a whole and in providing context for the defamatory Facebook posts. Those incidents, from the testimony of the plaintiff and his wife consisted of the following: a) The Van Nes’ would host late night parties, which disrupted the sleep of Mr. Pritchard and his family. On one occasion in the summer of 2012, a few days after the plaintiff made a second complaint to the Van Nes’ about the waterfalls, a loud explosion was heard in Ms. Van Nes’ backyard during a party; the next day, she told the plaintiff it had been a ¼stick of dynamite; b) Ms. Van Nes’ two sons on more than one occasion would enter Mr. Pritchard’s backyard without permission; c) The properties were not fenced, and on numerous occasions the Van Nes’ dog wandered into his yard and defecated. Ms. Pritchard testified that she has made 24 complaints about the dog to the municipality: 10 before the June 2014 Facebook posts, and another 14 between June and October or November 2014; and, d) On several occasions, the Van Nes’ would park one of their vehicles, or would allow visitors to park their vehicles, in front of a fire hydrant located in the plaintiff’s front yard, partially blocking or impeding access to the plaintiff’s driveway. Some of these incidents were reported by the plaintiff to the police. On the last of these occasions, Mr. Pritchard had been out driving with his teenage son, who was preparing for his driver’s license road test. On returning home, they found their driveway had been partially blocked by a pickup truck, and his son had to manoeuvre around it. As soon as they were parked, the defendant appeared and began swearing and screaming at Mr. Pritchard’s son, “My husband is parked illegally … go ahead and call the [expletive] police”; as if goading the Pritchards to make yet another complaint with the authorities. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 3/26