It happens that an important consideration for purchasing a property is the exceptional view that it has of a lake, river, seashore, valley or downtown. Does an owner have a recourse if a neighbour or future acquirer of the neighbour's property decides to build a new construction or increase the height of an existing one that substantially blocks a panoramic view? This issue was litigated in Raymond v. Goldberg et al. 2008 QCCS 5925.
Raymond acquired her property in 1999 and had extraordinary views of downtown Montreal and the St. Lawrence river as well as unobstructed natural light. Goldberg's property was situated in front of but at a lower elevation that that of Raymond.
The problem occurred when Goldberg decided to add a third story to his house which would partially, but not completely, obstruct Raymond's views. Goldberg applied to the City of Westmount for a building permit which was granted by city council after a thorough review by the Planning Advisory Committee and the Inspections department determined that the proposed renovations were in conformity with the City's by-laws.
Raymond applied for an injunction to prevent Goldberg from carrying out the renovations, alleging that she would incur a substantial loss of value to her property; loss of privacy; reduced lighting; and loss of the panoramic view.
Goldberg replied that his project was submitted to and approved by the City of Westmount after a rigorous process that confirmed that it was in conformity with municipal regulations. Consequently, he was within his rights to carry out the construction and that even if Raymond's view would as a result be adversely affected, her view was not protected by law. The City of Westmount was also a party to the case and supported Goldberg's position.
What are the legal principles that should apply and resolve the issue?
· Goldberg has the right to use and enjoy his property to the fullest extent subject to the limits of the law. His title to property was not limited by any servitude of non-construction in favour of Raymond or her property.
· The construction must respect the applicable laws and regulations, including zoning rules.
· Goldberg must respect the limits of Article 976 of the Quebec Civil Code which requires neighbours to accept normal inconveniences (and the corollary, not to impose unusual or exceptional inconveniences or nuisances).
· Goldberg must at all times, act in good faith.
The Court noted that Goldberg did not contravene any law, regulation or contractual obligation and acted in good faith.
Goldberg took necessary precautions to limit inconvenience and his project was "blessed" by the City after a rigorous and legitimate review process. He acted as a responsible owner, did not pollute, did not significantly deprive Raymond of her privacy and only partially limited her panoramic view.
The Court noted that there was no objective test to determine when inconveniences are excessive. Each case must be decided on its particular set of facts. Raymond and Goldberg were both entitled to use and enjoy their properties. Based on the facts of the case, the Court was not convinced that Goldberg's construction project would have resulted in an excessive inconvenience for Raymond. An inconvenience yes, but one that she was required to put up with.
