There's plenty... these are just within Alberta.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...ocompletePos=1
Quote:
I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for nuisance and are also entitled to an order restraining this continuing intrusion. Because the nuisance arises out of unlawful and continuing trespass on their property, I find that this is not a situation where damages should be awarded in lieu of an injunction.
In arriving at this conclusion I have taken into account the attempts made by the defendant to rectify the situation as well as the fact that a very substantial expenditure will be required to be made by the defendant to change the layout of its course or to otherwise protect the plaintiffs’ property. Counsel have referred me to the Australian case of Lester-Travers v. Frankston, [1970] V.R. 2, a case in which the facts are very similar to the ones before me and in which the court faced the same problems. In his judgment, Anderson J. states at pp. 9-10:
“I know of no basis on which it can be said that the interests of golfers, whether they be playing on a municipal golf course or any other kind of golf course, are superior to the right of the occupier of premises to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of such premises. In Bolton v. Stone, [1951] A.C. 850, [1951] 1 All E.R. 1078, where the question was whether a cricket ball unexpectedly hit into a public thoroughfare constituted a public nuisance, Lord Reid said, at (A.C.) p. 867 (All E.R., p. 1086): ‘If cricket cannot be played on a ground without creating a substantial risk, then it should not be played there at all.’ Probably only a Law Lord would dare to say such a thing in England, but emboldened by his Lordship’s observations, I venture to say that precisely the same observations apply to golf. There exists, in my opinion, a substantial risk in this case, and it would be contrary to one’s sense of justice, as well as inconsistent with the law, that the plaintiff’s rights should be subordinated to the leisurely pursuits of sportsmen. Nor does it assist the defendant’s case that the defendant was restricted in the amount of land available for the seventh and eighth holes. If the area is too restricted, the defendant’s predicament is of its own making and it is not resolved by penalizing the plaintiff. The words of Lord Reid are equally applicable to this aspect also.”
|
Basically it depends on whether the amount of nuisance is enough for the courts to get involved. If you find a half a dozen balls in your yard every year, and your window gets broken one time, that's probably not enough to bug the Courts about. If it's half a dozen a week, however, different story.
As a more general comment, maybe fewer armchair lawyers would be nice. It's a bit frustrating to read people who want to make themselves sound like experts talk about things they have no basic understanding of... not to name names.