Ramanand v. De Paula, 2012 MBQB 335

• Judge: Mainella, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: December 12, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2012 MBQB 335;(2012), 287 Man.R.(2d) 50 (QB)

Ramanand v. De Paula (2012), 287 Man.R.(2d) 50 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.008

Jaishima Ramanand and Sonia Ramanand (plaintiffs) v. Oscar De Paula and Caridad De Paula (defendants)

(CI 12-01-78580; 2012 MBQB 335)

Indexed As: Ramanand v. De Paula

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Mainella, J.

December 12, 2012.

Summary:

The De Paulas installed a central air conditioning unit. A bylaw enforcement officer with the City of Winnipeg approved the unit's current location. The De Paulas' next door neighbours, the Ramanands, complained that the unit was too noisy, and sued the De Paulas for nuisance. The Ramanands moved for an interlocutory injunction (s. 55(1) of the Court of Queen's Bench Act), that either required the unit to be moved, or placed limits on the unit's use.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion.

Injunctions - Topic 1806

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - Nuisance - [See Injunctions - Topic 6475 ].

Injunctions - Topic 2305

Mandatory injunctions - To remedy a nuisance - [See Injunctions - Topic 6475 ].

Injunctions - Topic 2309

Mandatory injunctions - Interim or interlocutory mandatory injunctions - [See Injunctions - Topic 6475 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6475

Particular matters - Nuisance - Residential property - The parties were next-door neighbours - The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants' air conditioning unit was too noisy - A bylaw enforcement officer with the City of Winnipeg had approved the unit's current location - The plaintiffs sued the defendants for nuisance, and moved for an interlocutory injunction that either required the unit to be moved, or placed limits on the units' use - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench denied both forms of interlocutory injunction - "An interlocutory mandatory injunction in the face of lawful activity by a defendant in conformity with a long-standing bylaw would be unusual in any case" - It was wholly inappropriate given the weaknesses in the plaintiffs' case and the fact they failed to demonstrate clear evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was refused - The balance of convenience ultimately favoured the defendants - See paragraph 72.

Torts - Topic 1260

Nuisance - Noise and vibration - [See Injunctions - Topic 6475 ].

Cases Noticed:

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 6].

Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, refd to. [para. 22].

Apotex Fermentation Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1994] 7 W.W.R. 420; 95 Man.R.(2d) 241; 70 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

B-FILER Inc. et al. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, [2005] A.R. Uned. 770; 2005 ABQB 704, refd to. [para. 26].

Benjamin v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [2006] O.T.C. 310; 80 O.R.(3d) 424 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Perry Building Ltd. v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner), [2009] Northwest Terr. Cases Uned. 54; 2009 NWTSC 54, refd to. [para. 26].

Barrette et al. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 392; 382 N.R. 105; 2008 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 28].

4067712 Manitoba Ltd. et al. v. Lakeland Golf Properties Inc. et al. (2004), 186 Man.R.(2d) 235; 2004 MBQB 157, affd. (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 203; 335 W.A.C. 203; 2004 MBCA 177, refd to. [para. 29].

Kenny et al. v. Schuster Real Estate Co. et al. (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 126; 21 W.A.C. 126; 1992 CarswellBC 898, refd to. [para. 31].

Suzuki v. Monroe, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1403; 87 R.P.R.(4th) 68; 2009 BCSC 1403, refd to. [para. 33].

Walter v. Selfe (1851), 4 De G. & Sm. 315; 64 E.R. 849, refd to. [para. 35].

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 114 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1991), 137 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

J-Sons Inc. v. Paterson (N.M.) & Sons Ltd., [1999] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 44; 1999 CarswellMan 167 (Q.B.), affd. [1999] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Bank of Montreal v. Superior Management Ltd. et al. (2010), 259 Man.R.(2d) 169; 2010 MBQB 244, refd to. [para. 41].

Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. v. Delmar Commodities Ltd. et al. (2012), 276 Man.R.(2d) 53; 2012 MBQB 48, refd to. [para. 41].

Oberg et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 276 Man.R.(2d) 189; 2012 MBQB 64, refd to. [para. 41].

Vitran Express Canada Inc. v. Samborski Garden Supplies Ltd. (2012), 281 Man.R.(2d) 285; 2012 MBQB 218, refd to. [para. 41].

Manitoba Government and General Employees Union v. Labour Board (Man.) et al. (2012), 285 Man.R.(2d) 54; 2012 MBQB 281, refd to. [para. 41].

Western Paint & Wallcovering Co. v. Benjamin Moore & Co. et al. (2009), 235 Man.R.(2d) 203; 2009 MBQB 1, refd to. [para. 42].

Palmer v. Burnaby (City), [2006] B.C.T.C. 165; 23 C.P.C.(6th) 185; 2006 BCSC 165, refd to. [para. 46].

Slonski et al. v. Pryor, [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 189; 2002 SKQB 431, refd to. [para. 46].

Banfai et al. v. Formula Fun Centre Inc. et al. (1984), 51 O.R.(2d) 361 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bone et al. v. Seale, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 797, refd to. [para. 47].

Hofford v. Pielechaty (1995), 102 Man.R.(2d) 291; 93 W.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 48].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 49].

232 Kennedy Street Ltd. v. King Insurance Brokers (2002) Ltd. et al. (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 147; 448 W.A.C. 147; 2009 MBCA 22, refd to. [para. 75].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Queen's Bench Act, S.M. 1988-89, c. 4; C.C.S.M., c. C-280, sect. 55(1) [para. 6].

Winnipeg (City) Bylaws, Neighbourhood Liveability Bylaw, sect. 70 [para. 17].

Winnipeg (City) Bylaws, Noise Control Bylaw (Winnipeg), Bylaw No. 2480/79, sect. 3.2.1 [para. 64].

Neighbourhood Liveability Bylaw (Winnipeg) - see Winnipeg (City) Bylaws, Neighbourhood Liveability Bylaw (Winnipeg).

Noise Control Bylaw (Winnipeg) - see Winnipeg (City) Bylaws, Noise Control Bylaw (Winnipeg).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (5th Ed. 2012), p. 763 [para. 31].

Klar, Lewis W., Linden, Allen M., et al., Remedies in Tort (2012) (Looseleaf - Release No. 6), vol. 3, p. 17-71 [para. 58].

Osborne, Philip H., The Law of Torts (4th Ed. 2011), p. 382 [para. 37].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2012) (Looseleaf - Release No. 21), para. 2.250 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Ryan M. Caithness, for the plaintiffs;

O. De Paula and C. De Paula, appeared in person.

This motion for an interlocutory injunction was heard before Mainella, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment, dated December 12, 2012.