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
CONTEMPT OF COURT ruling against NUISANCE DRAINAGE CHANGER ( non condo ) : Dankiewicz v. Sullivan 2020/01/07 17:04  
Again NOT legal advice.

For more than TEN YEARS the owner of a non-condo detached residential property in London Ontario, has fought an incredible & expensive battle to halt the damage caused by her neighbour's ongoing breach of a Subdivision Drainage Agreement.

In 2011 she was even granted a Court Order. That Order directed the nuisance drainage-changer to halt the nuisance ( of which his change(s) actually "reversed the flow" of subdivision surface waterflow, actually pooling such in the victim's rearyard ! )

But over the subsequent EIGHT PLUS YEARS since then has occurred instead a long & expensive narrative of under-response & futility.

Arguably the defendant's response was a pseudo-response. Pseudo or merely inadequate, the response left the flooding un-remedied. Freeze-vulnerable pumps on her own property have been one labour-intensive & ultimately inadequate temporary remedy.

Ultimately more than EIGHT YEARS after the nuisance was ordered halted, the nuisance causer was ACTUALLY held in contempt of court in November 2019.

Mr Justice Ian F. Leach's very interesting discussion of the contempt of court tool can be accessed below.

With the Province of Ontario poised to empower Ontario's CAT Condominium Authority Tribunal to TRY to wade into nuisance disputes, it may be worth looking at the strategies employed by the parties.

And at some potential rope-a-dope defences where an adjudicator has ordered the nuisance halted . . .

And how long & how much expense it took this prolonged non-condo battle to reach this still uncompleted point despite drainage law principles being fairly settled.

( After the June 24 2011 court Order was issued, this same struggle was examined in a March 3 /12 article by the Toronto Star's columnist property lawyer Bob Aaron.

The victim plaintiff told him that the court case at that point had cost her $ 70,000 for legal & expert witness fees, $ 33 K of which was awarded. But almost nine months thereafter she had still received nothing. “The court was a nightmare for me she is quoted. What has it cost her so far ?

Well the Nov 4/19 decision updates what happened later as she continued her trip into the Twilight Zone . . . )

Dankiewicz v. Sullivan 2019 ONSC 6382 issued Nov 4 /19
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster