What Do We Owe Our Neighbours?

Property owners must not worsen problems faced by their neighbours.

In Donley Investments Ltd. v. Canril Corp., Canril owned a vacant commercial property at 90 George Street in Ottawa, one inch west of the Donley building. The Donley basement began flooding in February 2003, after a broken City water main flooded the Canril building. No one knows how long the City leak went undetected. The City paid Canril $1272 as compensation, in exchange for a full and final release, which Canril gave, knowing of the flooding of the Donley property. Soon afterwards, Canril demolished its building, and refused Donley requests for permission to send cameras through its water pipes.

Meanwhile, water continued to infiltrate into the Donley building, which eventually developed mould. In May 2003, the estimated cost of cleanup was $35,000, and climbing.

Judge Métivier ruled that:

Canril was not responsible for the original pipe burst. But once they were aware that water infiltration was a continuing problem, they chose to do nothing at their own peril. Donley efforts to properly investigate the source of the water were impeded by Canril, which repeatedly denied permission to investigate on Canril property. While the source of water infiltration was never determined, it was reasonably probable that it came from the Canril building. Demolition of the Canril building was done improperly, causing damage to the Donley property, and allowing additional water to flow to the lower basement in the Donley building. This breached the Demolition Code. Canril demonstrated "a rather breath-taking lack of cooperation" with its neighbour. The continued water infiltration was a private nuisance for which Canril was responsible. Even if the nuisance was triggered by the broken City water main, Canril was not entitled to ignore the issue, "taking the attitude that it was not their problem." Canril argued that once holes were drilled through its basement slab, the water infiltrating the Donley basement was merely the normal flow of water following its natural course. The judge held that Canril remained responsible, because

...