“This dispute arises from cat droppings.”
That’s how B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal member David Jiang’s Jan. 16 decision on nuisance and trespassing begins.
Jiang said Dianne Holt claimed Gregory Ormston placed the droppings at her feet and kicked them into her yard.
She also alleged Ormston ripped off and stole a charge-port cover from her electric car during the same incident.
Holt claimed $5,000 as compensation for a combination of vehicle damage, time spent on yard cleanup, stress and anxiety arising from the incident, and other items discussed below, Jiang said.
Ormston denied liability, saying Holt’s cat left its poo on his property.
“They say they merely returned the droppings to their owner,” Jiang said. “They admit to kicking the droppings out of frustration. They also admit to taking the charge-port cover, though they say they initially intended to return it. They say they did not because of their lawyer’s advice.”
Ormston said Holt claimed an unreasonable amount for damages.
What happened?
Holt and Ormston occupied different sides of a duplex, Jiang said
Starting around March 15, 2023, Ormston began removing animal droppings from his side of the duplex’s front garden and placing them on Holt’s side.
Holt had a cat, which, at the time of the dispute, she would allow outside at least a few times a week.
Ormston said the droppings came from Holt’s cat.
“They say they saw the cat use their front garden as a litter box on at least one occasion,” Jiang said.”
"(Holt) does not conclusively deny that her cat left at least some droppings in the respondent’s yard."
However, Holt suggested Ormston used at least some droppings from their own dogs and cats.
“I find it unlikely that (Ormston) would undertake the unpleasant task of placing animal droppings in (Holt’s) yard without a sincerely held belief about the droppings’ origins,” Jiang said.
Jiang said he found “it likely that at least some of the droppings originated from (Holt’s) cat.”
Still, Holt and Ormston disagreed on the quantities of poo.
Holt claimed Ormston left 30 or more pieces every few days for two weeks.
Ormson said Holt was exaggerating, that it was only two occasions and less than five pieces of poo.
“There are no photos of the droppings, and (Holt) bears the burden to prove her claim, so I find the lower number is more likely as it is admitted,” Jiang said.
Then things heated up.
Holt put some poo on Ormston’s front mat.
Soon, he and his spouse came home on April 2, 2023 and found the droppings.
“They gathered the droppings and knocked on (Holt’s) door,” Jiang said. “She came outside. (Ormston) dropped the droppings at her feet. Unsurprisingly, the parties had an unpleasant verbal confrontation.”
Then, Ormston also kicked some or all of the droppings into Holt’s yard.
And, as Ormston passed Holt’s car, the charge-port cover caught the pocket of his jeans as he walked by, and this caused the cover to rip off.
Jiang said that breached a standard of care.
"I find (Ormston), acting reasonably, should have walked around the car with sufficient clearance to avoid snagging the cover," Jiang said.
“They took the car’s charge-port cover, and also damaged the area around the cover,” he said.
Jiang said Ormston denied damaging the car, but Jiang said, “the evidence refutes this.”
Holt called the police and Ormston was charged with theft and mischief.
“Ultimately the Crown stayed or withdrew the charges,” Jiang said. “The parties are no longer neighbours.”
The decision
Jiang said the auto-body invoice was $3,117.25, and ordered Ormston to pay it.
“I next turn to the issue of the droppings,” Jiang said said.
He said Ormston admitted to placing cat droppings in Holt’s front yard twice, once more on Holt’s mat, and kicking them in the second case.
“I find that (Ormston) did so intentionally and without a legal right to do so,” Jiang said. “So, I find the elements of trespass are proven.”
Still, Jiang said, Holt created a nuisance by allowing her cat to roam at night and leave droppings on Ormston’s property.
So, he found it unproven that Holt or Ormston was more blameworthy or sustained greater loss or damage than the other in the circumstances.
“I conclude that the parties suffered equally from the cat droppings, and so I make no orders about nuisance or trespass,” Jiang said.
