At the risk of humourlessness, can the following statement really be
true? "There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour's
garbage can ..." - Whither trespass to land?

Best wishes,

Ger

On 5/21/14, Stephen Pitel <spitel@uwo.ca> wrote:
> For those needing the refresher, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice told
> us yesterday that:
>
> "There is no claim for pooping and scooping into the neighbour's garbage
> can, and there is no claim for letting Rover water the neighbour's hedge.
> Likewise, there is no claim for looking at the neighbour's pretty house,
> parking a car legally but with malintent, engaging in faux photography on a
> public street, raising objections at a municipal hearing, walking on the
> sidewalk with dictaphone in hand, or just plain thinking badly of a person
> who lives nearby."
>
> The court noted, in the same vein, that:
>
> "As I explained to Plaintiffs' counsel at the hearing, a court cannot order
> the Defendants to be nice to the Plaintiffs. Litigation must focus on legal
> wrongs and legal rights - commodities which are in remarkably short supply
> in this action. As my colleague Perell J. put it in High Parklane Consulting
> Inc. v  Royal Group Technologies Ltd., [2007] OJ No 107 (SCJ), at para 36,
> "[i]t is trite to say that making a living is a stressful activity and that
> much of life can be nasty and brutish. Tort law does not provide
> compensation for all stress-causing and nasty conduct that individuals may

> suffer at the hands of another...""

>
> See (for an entertaining read) Morland-Jones v Taerk, 2014 ONSC 3061
> available at http://canlii.ca/t/g6wvd.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> --
> [image: Western Law]
>
> Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
> Goodmans LLP Faculty Fellow in Legal Ethics 2013-14
> Faculty of Law, Western University
> (519) 661-2111 ext 88433
>