Judge lambastes Dorval family for dumping garbage in front of neighbours' home

Quebec Superior Court Justice Sylvain Lussier got straight to the point in a decision released last week involving a longstanding dispute between neighbours on Allard Street in Dorval.

"Some cases should never come to court, let alone go to trial. This is one of them," Lussier said in the opening line of his decision.

"It is unfortunate, to say the least, that one should have to spend three days in court to establish that you can't dump your garbage on your neighbour's lot," he continued.

But that is indeed what happened.

In his decision, Lussier spelled out in great detail the bitter history of a woman and her aunt who believed that, "as a matter of principle," they had the right to place their garbage in front of their neighbour's home for years, despite repeated warnings and admonitions to cease and desist.

Video evidence

The plaintiffs in the case, a married couple, moved to their home on Allard Street in 2005. Their neighbour was an elderly widow who would often place her garbage in front of their home, on a strip of land technically owned by the city.

In 2009, the plaintiffs asked the elderly widow to stop.

She did, until her niece moved in with her in 2016.

"The garbage returned," Lussier noted in the decision.

The plaintiffs complained to the municipality, which advised them to document the garbage-dumping.

One of them took a day off work to videotape his neighbours on garbage day.

"The video is very telling. The pictures show the defendant in different clothes, at different times in the day, dutifully moving the garbage back where it was originally put, numerous times," Lussier said.

"This is not inadvertent behaviour."

Dumping escalates, police called

A couple of weeks later, the plaintiffs found a large amount of sod and cut grass dumped in a pile in front of their property, not placed in bins or bags.

"This was the straw that broke the camel's back!" Lussier said in the decision.

The plaintiffs called 911.

So did the younger defendant, who complained of a "mob" gathering in front of her property.

"Asked to describe the 'mob,' she testified that a group composed of the plaintiffs and their son, along with two 'senior citizens' were angrily looking at the sod she had just dumped and were discussing the matter," Lussier said.

"Considering that [the plaintiffs] are both short and thin, the Court considers that the group cannot objectively be viewed as a threat and that the term 'mob' is a ludicrous overstatement," he continued.

Police officer 'shocked' by defendant's response

One of the police officers who responded to the 911 call testified in court. He said he tried to propose solutions.

"When I suggested moving the garbage to the north side of the driveway, the woman categorically refused, probably because it would have damaged her beautifully manicured lawn," he wrote in his notes that day.

"When I suggested putting the garbage on the side of her driveway, she also refused, claiming that it would prevent her from getting the car out in the event of an emergency," the officer continued.

"I was completely shocked by the woman's unwillingness to negotiate a solution, especially knowing that it would defuse the conflict enormously."

"The defendant commented on the officer's testimony as being 'completely false' but offered no element of contradiction to the Court," Lussier noted.

Garbage made his life 'miserable': plaintiff

In the end, unable to broker a solution, the officer told the neighbours this wasn't a police matter.

The plaintiffs sent the defendants a lawyer's letter a few weeks after the sod-dumping incident, formally requesting the defendants stop placing garbage in front of their house.

Despite sworn statements and testimony from the defendants saying they complied with this request, photographs introduced in court showed the garbage was placed in front of the plaintiffs' home at least five more times.

"The plaintiff testified that his neighbours' attitude has rendered his life miserable. He is constantly on the lookout for garbage in front of his property," Lussier said.

On top of the garbage-dumping, Lussier noted in his decision the defendants also constructed a fence on the plaintiffs' side of the property line without informing them.

Defendants try to justify acts

Lussier noted in his decision that the younger defendant, the niece, in her initial statement justified the garbage-dumping, saying that her aunt had a longstanding agreement with the plaintiffs to put the garbage there.

"The evidence is obviously to the contrary," Lussier said.

"At trial, her position became that she was justified in placing the garbage there because the strip of land belongs to the City of Dorval and because her aunt had always put it there," Lussier said.

"The defendant describes herself as 'a woman of principles.' One of those principles appears to be that she can do whatever she wants," Lussier said.

"She acted with full knowledge of the consequences of her conduct, wanton disregard for the property of others and without consideration for the harm it could cause," he concluded.

Defendants must pay up and move the fence

Lussier ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs a total of $15,000 in moral and punitive damages, in addition to legal costs.

He also ordered the defendants to stop depositing garbage in front of the plaintiff's home and to move the fence they erected on the plaintiffs' property.

The lawyer for the defendants told CBC News she had no comment on the decision.