A dispute between Belwood Lake cottage neighbours is heading to court, with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) also named as a defendant in a $1.2 million lawsuit.

Allegations and Claims

Loss of Quiet Enjoyment and Drainage Damages

The plaintiff, who has leased their lot for 20.5 years, is seeking $700,000 from their neighbour for the loss of the “covenant of quiet enjoyment” and alleged drainage-related damages to the property. Additionally, they are demanding $500,000 from the GRCA for allegedly breaking its lease agreement and allowing the situation to unfold.

Restoration and Lease Update

The court is also being asked to order the GRCA to restore an altered laneway to its previous condition and update the plaintiff’s lease to specify the laneway as exclusively belonging to their lot.

Details of the Dispute

Unwarranted Trespass and Intrusion

According to the statement of claim, the dispute began when the GRCA appropriated a portion of the plaintiff’s cottage laneway and added it to the neighbouring lot. The neighbours then cut down mature trees and altered the slope of the laneway, resulting in water and drainage issues on the plaintiff’s side of the property line.

Damage to Shoreline and Access Issues

The lawsuit further alleges that the neighbour’s drainage tile installation damaged the shoreline, limiting the plaintiff’s access to the lake and eliminating the ability to place a dock where they had in the past.

Legal Proceedings

Statements and Defence

The lawsuit was filed in Orangeville. None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been tested or proven in court. Efforts to reach a GRCA spokesperson were not immediately successful. Both the neighbours and the conservation authority have filed notices of intent to defend but have not yet submitted statements of defence.

Plaintiff’s Entitlement

The statement of claim notes that the plaintiff is entitled to complete, full, undisturbed, exclusive possession and use of their lot, including the laneway as it was before the unlawful construction by the neighbours, which was allegedly encouraged and facilitated by the GRCA. The claim also states that the neighbours have knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully harassed, obstructed, threatened, and interfered with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s leased lot.