A man from Victoriaville sued his neighbours for $16,000. He claimed they had “ruined his life” by constantly calling the police and harassing him. But during the trial, the tables turned. He was condemned for throwing loud, drunken parties that went on until early morning. In the end, he was ordered to pay his neighbours $54,000.
Between 2012 and 2015, the man from Victoriaville hosted more than fifty booze-filled parties, causing a racket throughout the neighbourhood. Initially, the neighbours were patient. However, they quickly lost hope when the wild parties didn’t stop. They tried to talk to him, but nothing worked. Even worse, he seemed to go out of his way to cause harm by encouraging his guests to be even rowdier. After around fifteen visits from the Sûreté du Québec (the Quebec provincial police or “SQ”), the neighbourhood had had enough.
Still bent on making his neighbours’ lives difficult, the man from Victoriaville sued them for harassment. But the judge saw through his claim right away and rejected it. Instead, the judge focused on the neighbours’ lawsuit against the man for neighbourhood annoyance.
Neighbours must tolerate normal inconveniences
According to the Civil Code of Quebec, we must accept the normal inconveniences that come with having neighbours. This includes daytime and evening noises, smells, trees and fences, and smoke. After all, neighbourhoods aren’t monasteries. It’s normal to hear a lawnmower or kids playing from time to time. But where do we draw the line between what’s normal and what’s not?
First, you must consider the characteristics of your neighbourhood. What’s considered “normal” noise in a rural area might not be “normal” in an urban area. For example, hearing farm animals might be expected in the countryside, but not in a city. As for the man from Victoriaville, his neighbours didn’t blame him for hosting two or three parties with a bit of loud music – that might’ve been normal in an urban setting. What really caused trouble was how often he threw these parties and how over-the-top they were for a quiet residential neighbourhood.
The man’s excesses were constant
Courts will look at multiple factors to determine if a neighbourhood inconvenience is normal. They’ll pay close attention to how unusual and excessive the inconvenience is for neighbours. In this case, the judge noted that the parties involved heavy drinking and constant car traffic in and out of the area. As for the noise, the guests chanted and shouted, and there was loud music coming from a state-of-the-art stereo system.
On top of these noises, there were fireworks exploding, engines roaring and tires screeching until the early hours of the morning. Neighbours lost sleep, and some local kids had to take medication to get some rest.
Neighbours politely asked the man to tone it down, but the parties didn’t get any quieter. The many police visits didn’t help either. The Victoriaville man doubled down: he organized wild “donut” sessions. The judge made it clear that these parties weren’t just uncomfortable, but abnormal and excessive.
The man’s bad faith is an aggravating factor
In his decision, the judge stressed how serious the inconvenience was and pointed out that the Victoriaville man acted in bad faith. Instead of listening to his neighbours’ reasonable complaints, he only worked harder to make the parties louder and more unbearable. He also made many unpleasant comments toward his neighbours. On top of that, he admitted to purposely making as much noise as he could to “challenge” them. What started as noisy parties quickly became a full campaign of harassment and intimidation against his neighbours.
The police testified that the Victoriaville man caused inconveniences deliberately, based on multiple visits to the property after complaints. Since police raids and fines didn’t stop the man’s behaviour, the police advised neighbours to send him demand letters. However, it’s the man who took legal action first. According to the judge, the only reason for this clearly abusive lawsuit was to scare the neighbours into silence.
In light of all this information, the judge decided that the Victoriaville man had to pay his neighbours for the damage he caused.
Punitive damages
The judge ordered the Victoriaville man to pay $25,000 to a first neighbouring couple. Each adult received $10,000, plus $5,000 to cover the legal costs they paid to defend themselves against his lawsuit. The second neighbouring couple received the same amount, plus $4,000 in punitive damages. The judge explained that punitive damages were meant to recognize the harm done to their dignity, honour, reputation, privacy and their right to enjoy their home in peace. These punitive damages were also meant to punish the Victoriaville man’s outrageous behaviour and to discourage him from doing it again.