03/02/2020 2016 BCSC 686 Pritchard v. Van Nes certain decibel limit during the nights. He stated that the damage awards would be significantly higher if he were not also granting an injunction. [55] I do not find the nuisance caused by the waterfall structure entirely similar to the disruption caused by a loud air conditioner near one’s bedroom window. The waterfall structure was further away from Mr. Pritchard’s bedroom and I would think that the distress and annoyance caused by a motorized sound is more so for ordinary people than that caused by a loud waterfall. [56] I find a fair award in all the circumstances in respect of that nuisance is $2,000. In respect of the issues surrounding the defendant’s dog, I award a further $500, for a total damages award in nuisance of $2,500. [57] In addition to damages, Mr. Pritchard also seeks a permanent injunction against Ms. Van Nes to require that the waterfall in her backyard cease operating from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. As an equitable remedy, the court has the discretion to grant the injunction, based on various factors as outlined in Suzuki at para. 110: A number of factors are relevant in determining whether or not to grant an injunction. The inadequacy of damages is frequently considered, along with the nature of the plaintiff’s injury and the balance of convenience between the parties: Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance at paras. 1.60-1.140; Boggs at para.141; A.M. Linden & B. Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law, 8th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2006) at 594. [58] In the present case, I view an award of damages for prospective harm as an inadequate remedy. The plaintiff and his wife are entitled not to have their sleep disturbed. Damages would be poor compensation for the loss of sleep. They are also entitled to the peace of mind that would follow from having the waterfall noise – a constant reminder of the fractious relationship with their neighbour – abated. [59] I view the balance of convenience as favouring the plaintiffs. The burden imposed on them outweighs, significantly, the esthetic attraction enjoyed by the defendant. [60] I also note Ms. Van Nes’ statement to the court that she will do whatever is required. [61] There will be a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendant and owners and occupiers of the property on which the defendant’s residence is located from operating the waterfall structure between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Defamation Claim [62] The Plaintiff pleads that the posts on Facebook, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and by innuendo, meant and were understood to mean, inter alia, the following: a) that the Plaintiff was stalking and/or was obsessed with the Defendant’s children; b) that the Plaintiff videotaped children in the backyard at all times; c) that the Plaintiff was a paedophile; d) that the Plaintiff’s character was not of good standing; https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/16/06/2016BCSC0686.htm 12/26