From the website of the B.C Supreme Court we chose two other cases to report.
First, we take that of a noisy air-conditioner posted under http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/ doc/2009/2009bcsc1403/2009bcsc1403.html:
“Mr. and Mrs. Suzuki claim that their neighbours Mr. and Mrs. Munroe have committed the tort of private nuisance. They say that the installation of a central air conditioning unit outside the Munroes’ home and just a few feet away from the home of the Suzukis, has created a nuisance as a result of noise. They seek damages and an injunction.
The Munroes deny that any nuisance was ever caused by them. They say the Suzukis are unduly sensitive. They say that the air conditioning unit was reasonably quiet when first installed, and has been made quieter through various modifications that they have voluntarily undertaken. They argue that central air conditioning appliances like the one they installed are common in the neighbourhood, and that their appliance complies with the relevant local bylaws.”
This case started when the air conditioning unit was installed on Sunday, June 25, 2006 and escalated from there via the City of Coquitlam’s noise inspector all the way to the court.
The entire legal text is far too long to print in this newsletter. Noteworthy are the following comments by the judge:
 I will award $4,000 to Mrs. Suzuki and $2,000 to Mr. Suzuki as damages for nuisance. If I were not granting an injunction, the damages awarded would be significantly higher.
 On the evidence, no objective standard is available to me concerning acceptable noise standards other than that which is reflected in the various bylaws.
 It is unfortunate that the City of Coquitlam has no applicable bylaw containing an objective standard. In my view, had such a bylaw existed, this lawsuit would have been unnecessary.
 I order as follows: a) The Munroes may not operate their air conditioner such that it causes sound beyond 55 dB(A) during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 45 dB(A) during the remaining hours of the day, measured at any point along the Munroe Suzuki property line; Note: b) and c) are unrelated to the noise issue.
 Subject to submissions within 45 days concerning the potential effects of Rule 37B of the Rules of Court, the plaintiffs are entitled to their costs of this action.
 Both parties sought special costs. Special costs are usually awarded only in relation to misconduct in the course of litigation. There is no basis for an award of special costs in this case.
“The Honourable Mr. Justice Verhoeven”
...Court cases continues below