← University
Neighbour Disputes: Easements, Encroachments, and Nuisance
0 of 4

A boundary survey commissioned in anticipation of refinancing revealed that the rear wall of a storage addition constructed 8 years earlier by the owner of a commercial property in a mixed-use district extended approximately 45 centimetres onto the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot, operated as a small-batch food production facility, had been under the same ownership for 12 years. The survey finding set in motion a dispute that would eventually encompass not only the encroachment itself but also a longstanding easement and complaints about operational disturbances that had simmered for months.

The 2 properties share a common boundary running roughly 30 metres along their rear lot lines. When the current owner of the storage facility purchased that property 6 years ago, title disclosed a registered easement granting the food production operator the right to use a 3-metre-wide strip along the eastern edge of the storage facility's lot for vehicular access to a rear loading area. The easement had been created by express grant 18 years earlier when both properties were under common ownership and had been exercised continuously since. The storage facility owner, unfamiliar with the easement's precise terms at the time of purchase, later installed bollards and a chain-link gate across the access strip, asserting that the food production operator's delivery trucks were damaging the surface and creating liability exposure.

The encroachment complicated matters further. The storage addition predated the current owner's acquisition, and no survey had been obtained at closing. The food production operator, upon learning of the survey results, demanded removal of the encroaching wall and restoration of the lot to its original condition. The storage facility owner responded that the structure had stood without objection for nearly a decade and that removal would be disproportionately costly.

Layered onto these disputes were the food production operator's grievances about exhaust fumes from diesel generators that the storage facility ran during frequent power interruptions, and the storage facility owner's complaints about early-morning delivery noise and odours from the food production process. Both operators had documented incidents over the preceding 14 months, exchanged increasingly sharp correspondence, and consulted legal counsel. Neither had yet commenced formal proceedings, but settlement discussions had stalled, and each party was weighing litigation against other resolution options. The properties remained in active commercial use throughout, with ongoing friction affecting daily operations on both sides of the boundary.

Nuisance and Trespass: The Legal Remedies for Interference With Property Rights

Property rights in Canada carry with them an inherent expectation of peaceful enjoyment, a principle so fundamental that it predates Confederation and remains embedded in both common law and civil law traditions across the country. When that enjoyment is interfered with, whether through physical invasion, noxious emissions, excessive noise, or other forms of disturbance, the law provides remedies through the torts of trespass and nuisance. For business owners, operators of non-profit organizations, and professionals who own or lease property, understanding these causes of action is essential because they cut both ways. You may find yourself as the aggrieved party seeking relief against a neighbouring operation, or you may discover that your own business activities have exposed you to liability you never anticipated. The consequences of either scenario can be financially significant and operationally disruptive, making it critical to understand where the legal boundaries lie and how Canadian courts approach these disputes.

Trespass to land represents one of the oldest and most straightforward property torts recognized in Canadian common law provinces. It occurs when a person directly and intentionally enters upon land in the possession of another without lawful justification. The critical elements are directness and intention, though the intention required is simply the intention to do the act that constitutes the entry, not necessarily an intention to trespass. This means that a person who mistakenly believes they have permission to enter, or who incorrectly believes the land is their own, has still committed a trespass if they intentionally walked onto that property. The tort is actionable per se, meaning that the person in possession need not prove any actual damage to succeed in a claim. The mere unauthorized entry is sufficient to ground an action. This characteristic distinguishes trespass from many other torts and reflects the law's commitment to protecting possessory rights even where no tangible harm results. In practical terms, this means that nominal damages will be awarded even where the entry caused no real loss, though of course substantial damages and injunctive relief become available where actual harm or ongoing interference can be demonstrated.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.