A dispute between two neighbours in Campbell River in which one intended to 害羞草研究所渦pset, offend and cause stress,害羞草研究所� has resulted in more than $16,000 in damages, according to a recent decision in B.C. provincial court.

Judge Catherine Crockett made her decision July 31, against Reno Pellegrin in his dispute with John and Sherri Wheeldon which lasted more than six years, primarily involving a concrete retaining wall between two neighbouring properties.

In 2008, the Wheeldons constructed a sports court at the back of their lot, and a concrete retaining wall between their property and the Pellegrin害羞草研究所檚. Due to a miscalculation of the property line and the fact the concrete spread, part of the wall ended up on the Pellegrin property.

In her decision, Crockett noted the error was inadvertent, not intentional.

She also explained Pellegrin testified that despite the wall being on his land, it was also to his benefit, as it effectively shored up his yard, which is higher than the Wheeldons害羞草研究所� property.

Around 2013 to 2014, the cordial relationship between the neighbours broke down. In April 2014, Pellegrin dumped approximately 20 pounds of dog feces on the Pellegrin/Wheeldon property line.

Crockett said it is clear the retaining wall constitutes an ongoing trespass. On Dec. 15, 2015, Pellegrin took the position he was entitled to remove the wall, and partially took it down with a jackhammer. He estimated he removed 14 inches from the top.

害羞草研究所淢r. Pellegrin submits that spraypainting the word 害羞草研究所楻emove害羞草研究所� on the wall in May and June of 2015 was a form of warning, as was his letter of June 9, 2014,害羞草研究所� she wrote.

In the decision, Crockett reviewed videos of Pellegrin taking down the wall. Some of the statements she heard from Pellegrin on the videos include: 害羞草研究所淗ope you and yours have a merry merry Xmas 害羞草研究所�. This is what happens when you don害羞草研究所檛 get along with your neighbours 害羞草研究所�. Call the cops about every little thing. Call bylaws and animal control about every little thing. Here害羞草研究所檚 what happens.害羞草研究所�

She said Pellegrin created a dangerous situation with concrete falling to the ground, jackhammering at the level of people害羞草研究所檚 faces and causing the fence to fall.

害羞草研究所淭he evidence also establishes, quite clearly, that Mr. Pellegrin害羞草研究所檚 actions were motivated by malice 害羞草研究所� in short, this was a vindictive, pointless, dangerous and unlawful act.害羞草研究所�

Crockett added while the law does permit a person to remove a trespass or nuisance in certain circumstances, 害羞草研究所渢his is not the case.害羞草研究所�

There was no urgency to the situation. The wall caused him no harm. In fact, as he testified, the wall benefited him, she wrote. 害羞草研究所淗is jackhammering of the wall was anything but a proportionate response to the trespass. There was nothing approaching 害羞草研究所榚xceptional circumstances害羞草研究所� to justify his action.害羞草研究所�

Due to trespassing, Crockett awarded $2 in favour of Pellegrin against the Wheeldons: $1 for walking onto Pellegrin害羞草研究所檚 property on various dates and another dollar for the ongoing trespass of the retaining wall.

She awarded $16,801 to the Wheeldons which included $6,300 to replace the retaining wall, $6,000 in general damages and $2,500 in general, aggravated and punitive damages for various repeated nuisances and trespasses.

For more news from Vancouver Island and beyond delivered daily into your inbox, please

photos@comoxvalleyrecord.com
Like us on and follow us on