Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
CAFCOR Forum
_GEN_GOTOBOTTOM Post Reply
TOPIC:
#18987
COMPLAINTS HELD NUISANCE / non-condo owner hit for $ 92 K ; JOHNSON v CLINE 2019/08/04 18:06  
No matter how unsupportable, should even a tsunami of complaints to police & authorities ever rise to the level of actionable civil nuisance entitling restraints & compensation payable to the complainant’s targets ?

Particularly if made with sincerity & some factuality, could such level of complaint-filing undesirably deter valid complaints being made generally ? Does there have to be other toxicity-promoting behaviours ?

And after 8 years of confrontations & litigation, what does this non-condo outcome say about condo /strata / Building Scheme neighbour wars & grudges where adjacent hard feelings can fester for years ?

1 - Canada’s Supreme Court recently rejected an Application for Leave to Appeal to Canada’s top court , from a Kitchener Ontario NON-CONDO owner.

2 - That same leave-seeker Jeffrey Cline had been held in 2017 ( & on appeal this year ) to have committed years of civil nuisance centrally by at least 30 or more complaints to police about his non-condo targets nextdoor including surveillance.

Once litigating furiously, Mr Cline & his next-door targets traded claims of civil nuisance. The targets were also accused by Mr Cline of privacy breaches for the way they set up / used surveillance recordings.

3 - Whatever, by 2019 there had been EIGHT ( 8 ) years of poisonous toxicity apparently started with complaints about the targets' barking puppy, property lines ( ultimately resolved in favour of the targets ) and chirping of auto accessories.

4 - Gobsmackingly over SEVEN DAYS OF HEARINGS the congested Superior Court process in Kitchener was held compelled by aspects of the targets' filings to proceed formally instead of summarily !

That must have allowed the trail judge to get a VERY close look at Mr Cline & his 746 submitted handwritten pages of observed but often arguably normal urban disturbances expectable from neighbours.

But the conduct of Mr. Cline's targets had arguably contributed to the general toxicity of this long neighbour war. They were arguably NOT without blame.

Pointedly the 2017 judgment would characterize Mr Cline's exhaustive commentaries as evidence of "OBSESSION". ( Excerpted : ". . . . [93] One definition of “obsession”” in The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary is “a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling”. By that definition, Mr. Cline has an obsession towards the Johnsons.

[94] His 746 pages of handwritten journal notes are replete with unfounded suspicions, notations of events that would be of no importance to reasonable people, and are full of references to his dislike and lack of respect for virtually everyone else involved in this case. . . .

. . . [99] The volume of notes he made, and the detail recorded therein, evidences to me that Mr. Cline must have spent most of the time when he was at home observing the Johnson property . . . "

5 - Further, at some point Mr Cline would terminate the initial counsel & assume SRL self-represented legal conduct of his case. Both the appeal tribunal & possibly part of the lower court process would thus have interacted with him unfiltered, without any "softening" benefit of counsel . . .

One suspects such at least may not have helped gain sympathy for his cross-claims. ( Remember that the 8 year neighbour war had arguably NOT been without mutual toxicity & likely incitement . . . )

6 - NO SETTLEMENT : The eventual 2017 judgment would pointedly take judicial notice that Mr Cline not merely refused to accept settlement offers, he refused to even confirm receipt of them.

7 - Flash forward : Mr Cline's complaints & interactions get him hit with a Restraining Order & awards to his targets for $ 92 K ! ( That comprises $ 34,500 in damages and legals of $ 57,000 ).

With denial of Leave to Appeal the mere legal battle may be over . .

8 - Epilogue : The Kitchener Record reports that the target neighbours at August 2019 are preparing to sell but claim somehow hampered by still unresolved & un-detailed leftover aspects of original property dispute.

What effect would this highprofile local dispute have on offers to buy them out ? Would there be reluctance to buy into what's occurred over the last 8 years ?

And will the judicial awards ever be collected ?

8 - The judicial outcomes :

Cline v Johnson 2019 SCC 67977 issued July 25/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j1mjc

Cline v (Drummond) Johnson 2019 ONCA 188 issued March 7/19 http://canlii.ca/t/j088c

Johnson v Cline, 2017 ONSC 3916 issued June 27/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h4jjj

Johnson v. Cline, 2017 ONSC 5144 issued Aug 30/17 http://canlii.ca/t/h5pj7
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
_GEN_GOTOTOP Post Reply
contact webmaster