NEIGHBOURHOOD DISTURBANCES

Introduction

As neighbours, we have to be tolerant of normal neighbourhood annoyances. However, there is a fine line between the limit of tolerance depending on the nature, location or customs to which one owes to the other in accordance with section 976 of the Civil code of Quebec (herein after “Civil Code”) and infringing and violating your civil rights.

Even though you might not agree with your neighbor, it is always more practical to attempt to resolve a dispute in an amicable fashion

Définition

The Courts have tried to avoid applying an excessively large interpretation of the “neighbour” concept[1].For instance, the proximity between two or several plots of land is important when qualifying these plots as neighbours. Or, living on the same street or in the same neighborhood can indeed be giving rise to a neighbourly dispute situation.

Having as its main objective to reduce problems resulting from a relationship between neighbours, section 976 of the Civil Code unveils a precise goal that emerges from the principle that the cost and consequences of our own activities must not cause prejudice or suffering to others. Having as starting point the peaceful enjoyment and pacific coexistence between neighbours, the Court asked themselves if a unique regime had been established from the coming into force of the Civil Code in 1994 and its section 976 which reads as follows:

“Neighbours shall suffer the normal neighbourhood annoyances that are not beyond the limit of tolerance they owe each other, according to the nature or location of their land or local usage.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledges the existence of a responsibility regime based on the annoyances that are “beyond the limit of tolerance”. By adjudicating on the regime, the highest court of the country closes the debate on the effects of ownership pursuant to section 976 of the Civil Code by ruling in favor of a limit to the right of ownership:

? Even though it appears to be absolute, the right of ownership has limits.  Article 976 C.C.Q. establishes one such limit in prohibiting owners of land from forcing their neighbours to suffer abnormal or excessive annoyances. This limit relates to the result of the owner’s act rather than to the owner’s conduct. It can therefore be said that in Quebec civil law, there is, in respect of neighbourhood disturbances, a no?fault liability regime based on art. 976C.C.Q. which does not require recourse to the concept of abuse of rights or to the general rules of civil liability. With this form of liability, a fair balance is struck between the rights of owners or occupants of neighbouring land?[2].

It is also suitable to specify that the section in the Civil Code binds not only the landlord, but also the tenant, being every person with a right of use of the property including every person living with the landlord [3].

The Court of Quebec recently reinforced the necessity, in order to conclude that we are in presence of a neighbourly dispute in accordance to section 976 of the Civil Code, based on two factors, being the gravity and the repetitive nature of the annoyance[4].

It is suitable to firstly distinguish the misconduct or fault of abnormal annoyances. For example, a neighbour threatening you and being aggressive towards you can be liable in accordance with the regular civil liability regime, subject to the necessary elements of engaging his liability and responsibility.

The advantage of the non-fault liability regime emanating from the article 976 of the Civil Code is that it is not necessary to prove the misconduct or fault of the neighbour, element that is usually essential in the regular civil liability regime. The burden of proof is therefore reduced.

Full Article:

https://www.schneiderlegal.com/2016/10/03/neighbourhood-disturbances/