03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes [50] The plaintiff relies on three cases as to quantification of damages for the nuisance claim: Aschenbrenner v. Yahemech, 2010 BCSC 905; Boggs v. Harris, 2009 BCSC 789; and Suzuki v. Munroe, 2009 BCSC 1403. [51] In Aschenbrenner, the plaintiffs moved into a home in Victoria and shortly thereafter installed a hot tub. The humming of the hot tub disturbed their defendant neighbour. The plaintiffs went to great lengths to reduce the noise from the hot tub. They even went so far as purchasing a $700 new motor that ran quieter, and still the defendant was unsatisfied. The defendant engaged in sustained and numerous incidents of harassing and threatening the plaintiffs. Metzger J. found the defendant meant to annoy or irritate the plaintiffs by placing odorous compost bins next to the property line, subjecting the plaintiffs to compost smells almost on a daily basis. In one instance, the defendant placed fish offal in two compost bins on the hot summer day of the plaintiffs’ daughter’s graduation party on their back deck, and another time, the defendant made excessive noise moving rocks in the middle of the night. Metzger J. awarded $2,000 in general damages for the nuisance claim. [52] In Boggs, the plaintiffs moved into a condominium complex and attached to their unit was that of the defendants. Over the period of a little more than two years, the defendants deliberately caused excessive noise in their own unit to annoy the plaintiffs, such as pounding on the floor, on walls, moving and throwing chairs around, and playing loud music. There were at least 10 to 12 occasions of excessive noise. The plaintiffs, who had been in a same-sex relationship for about 30 years, claimed that the intentional nuisance directed at them was as a result of the their sexual orientation. The defendants video- and audio-taped the plaintiffs several times, and had several confrontations where the defendants made insulting and offensive remarks against them. Halfyard J. stated that the incidents viewed in isolation were not serious, but they formed part of a lengthy course of misconduct which constitutes nuisance, and awarded $7,500 for non-pecuniary damages. [53] Suzuki is more factually similar to the present matter. In that case, the parties were, as in this matter, neighbours in a residential suburban community in Coquitlam, B.C. The plaintiffs, husband and wife, claimed that the noise emanating from a central air conditioning unit 18 feet away from the plaintiffs’ bedroom window created a nuisance. This went on for a period of approximately 3 years. The plaintiffs’ sleep was also disturbed, and the negative impact on the plaintiff wife’s health was especially pronounced as the nuisance was a cause of some of her psychiatric challenges. Medical evidence supported her claim. [54] The plaintiffs had evidence of professionally obtained noise level measurements, which found that the air conditioned produced 51 to 53 decibels. On the evidence, Verhoeven J. found that most people would consider an air conditioning unit operating in excess of 50 decibels only a few feet from their bedroom window as constituting a nuisance. Verhoeven J. ordered $2,000 as damages to the husband and $4,000 to the wife, whose distress and suffering was more severe. He acknowledged that the damage award would not eliminate the nuisance, but it was still justified in all the circumstances to provide some solace to the plaintiffs. Verhoeven J. also awarded a permanent injunction that did not allow the defendants to operate the air conditioner above a https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 11/26