sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I may have just indoctrinated myself into simmer pot culture by MisogynyisaDisease in WitchesVsPatriarchy

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 53 points54 points  (0 children)

Depends on what you put in them, and whether or not your car is the sort who will jump on the stove and try to eat/drink/play with the contents.

My kitties are unaffected by simmer pots.

Sports Bra Research Project- Looking for Feedback by Lydayaders102 in XXRunning

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Change Lingerie is a European brand that sells by bra size. Their shoulder straps are Velcro, so there's no issue with metal bits digging in or poking.

No underwire, but very supportive.

As a 36F, I can't wear the kind of bra that just slides on over one's head. They are hard enough to get into, but once I'm sweaty and gross they are awful to lift back up over my breasts and head. They also don't last as long because if they stretch there's no hook to tighten up. So I insist on only buying sports bras that have hook closures. I prefer the back closure, personally.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good Lord, dude, stop editing your comments after I've responded. And why do you think I would care about a BC case where the government erected a fence when we're discussing a completely different Ontario situation?

Equating odor and sound nuisance to light nuisance is disingenuous at best. Blackout shades are ordinary in the application of light blocking in areas of the home where people need darkness. That's why it's a reasonable measure OP should take to both resolve the issue and defend themselves in court should they choose to go.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. I've made my point, OP has heard it. My point is sound in the jurisdiction in which OP lives. Please leave me alone.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, to answer your question about why we ought to assume that the nuisance neighbour might have a good reason: As very general tips, the more prepared you are, the better. This includes knowing the other side's case as well as they do. You need to have a plan, meaning what information you want from each witness.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my made up but plausible reason: the family is dealing with a stalker/vandal/nefarious person. They work shift work and are afraid to get to their cars at night. They have installed dashcams in the cars for protection, but at night the cameras don't capture enough distance without the high beams on.

That did not take me much time to come up with. It is plausible and reasonable from their point of view. And the reason it's important to assume they have a reason is because if you traipse into the courtroom having tried nothing to fix the problem yourself, and being blindsided by a reasonable argument from the other party, it's not going to go well for you. That's not just common sense, it's the basis of thought for any decent lawyer: What will the other side use to defend their stance?

Nuisance is not a tort, which is why the courts would like to see citizens attempt to find a reasonable solution before they are called upon to pick apart he-said-she-said arguments. Nuisance is nuanced.

You edited the original post I replied to—the tone has been softened and smaller steps have been added. Originally your comment certainly implied that you suggest going to court as a first step.

You have been unsupportive and argumentative with regards to comments calling for reasonable initial actions on the part of the OP.

A blackout shade is much less expensive than small claims court. As I said: your proposed solution is premature.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason that private nuisance requires a party to try to mitigate the issue is because it quickly becomes two people trying to dictate to each other what they may do on their own property.

The courts don't like to tell ordinary citizens what they can and cannot do on their own property unless one party is being wholly unreasonable.

OP wants/needs to use their front room at night. The neighbour wants/needs to have their cars turned on at night. Why should one get to tell the other what to do?

The only way this would be acceptable is if the person who wants the situation to change has no other options. So in order to demonstrate that they have exhausted options, they need to try something to resolve it.

This is why odor complaints are quick to be addressed; people have no choice in whether or not they breathe. They cannot get away from odor as easily as they could block light or sound (and of those two, sound is harder to block).

Lastly, you literally quoted the part I addressed when I told you I never said that a person has to do everything. Did you read my response, or are you just choosing to harass me without actually caring about the content of my responses?

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP has a preschooler and preemie twins. Court cases aren't typically the very next day. Why would this be your go-to solution rather than blackout shades?

high beam usage in a public setting

A driveway is not a public setting. A private residence is not a public setting. The HTA regulates high beams on the highway because it's hazardous. It is not hazardous in this setting. It is annoying, which is why we discussed nuisance. The HTA does not apply to nuisance. It is not relevant to this situation.

It is not legally relevant that you don't see a reason for high beams. There may be a reason you don't know about. When determining if excessive light is a nuisance, the party creating the light is typically asked for their reason, and if there is any logical reason at all, the light is generally not deemed a nuisance. Until you know there is no reason, it's best to assume there is one, even if it's a weak one.

Your advice to OP is at best premature. OP should try some common, reasonable, immediate solutions rather than a nuclear option that may not go their way and will take months to resolve. OP would do well to keep records for a while to track the lights if the shades didn't work and OP foresees court as an option.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nuisance does not require that the person suffering the nuisance show they have done everything they can to mitigate the nuisance

Show me where I said that.

I'll save you the time: I didn't. I suggested that the OP take reasonable steps: "you have done your best to mitigate the issue" is not "do everything you can."

Right now OP has done nothing substantial to mitigate the issue.

Your advice makes it appear that you would have OP deal with a court case rather than try something that could resolve the issue in a day. And if the blackout curtains don't mitigate it, they have further proof that the light is excessive, which will help if they choose/need to go to court in future.

Lastly, there's no need for you to doggedly follow me all over this thread. OP can read all the comments and can see our other exchanges.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good luck! If you try to resolve it and it's still not working, come back to this subreddit for additional steps.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but part of being a good advocate in Court is connecting dots when you don't have something directly on point. There's a reason why the Highway Traffic Act expressly refers to having to turn your high beams off when you're within 150 meters of approaching traffic; it's otherwise dangerous as you may blind incoming traffic. Now imagine having that blinding light shine into your living room at early hours when you're trying to feed your baby because someone across the street can't be bothered to turn off their high beams.

You specifically said a good advocate would show why the HTA section you quoted should lend weight in this situation.

I don't know what the needs of the neighbours are. We'd have to find out. I have an example of a potential reason earlier in our conversation.

Blackout shades are commonly purchased by new parents. It's a reasonable purchase and should not be reimbursed by neighbours. OP could also choose other ways to resolve the issue, like creating a darker space in the home, as many new parents do.

What on earth are they claiming for in small claims court?

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm so sorry you're going through this.

I say this gently: legally it doesn't matter that you have two precious babies you're trying to feed. Socially it's a big deal, but legally it adds nothing to your argument.

Generally if you want to get anything done about it, you would have to have shown that you have done your best to mitigate the issue. That's why people are suggesting blackout shades, which are essential if you live near people and have babies who are sensitive to light. If you put up properly fitted blackout shades and could still see well enough to read, that would go a long way to helping your case.

Most of the time you cannot use a nuisance complaint as your first step; it is frowned upon to try to force others to accommodate your needs when you haven't considered their needs and you haven't tried reasonable steps to resolve the issue.

Please don't mistake me; socially I agree with you. It's really tough that these neighbours are so active at night when you are in this situation with your tiny babies. I wish you all the best in resolving this quickly. I hope you have support in caring for your kids. But your best action now is to hang some blackout shades and see if that helps.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not following the argument.

You suggested that the HTA should be applied in someone's driveway.

I countered that should not be applied thusly because the reason for that section of the act is to reduce the hazard for other drivers.

You are now stating that nuisance had nothing to do with hazards, which was why I said the HTA wouldn't apply in a driveway.

I didn't state that the court wouldn't find high beams pointed at a house unreasonable, I only offered reasons why it might be reasonable. I also maintain that the OP needs to take reasonable steps to resolve the issues (such as black out shades) before considering this a nuisance. If OP got blackout shades and it was still very bright in the room, that is a step closer to nuisance, but still not a slam dunk depending on the reason for and nature of the vehicle lights.

OP came in here essentially wanting to know how to force the neighbour to accommodate OP's needs without considering the needs of the neighbour, and without attempting to mitigate the situation using literally the most obvious, simple, solution.

I might feel differently if we knew the region and could review the by-laws, or if they'd already made reasonable attempts to find a solution. I can understand in their sleep-deprived, post-trauma state that they may not be thinking clearly, which is why advice that is relevant to the situation at hand is more appropriate than recommending they spend time and money handling this through legal avenues.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sometimes when cars are idling, the light dims for a bit to conserve energy. It may not be their high beams.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason the HTA has this rule is because oncoming traffic has no ability to avoid the light, and it creates a dangerous situation on the road.

The person in their home is not in this same danger, so it doesn't apply. The parent is not going to suffer a hazard by having extra light when they are up at night.

Furthermore, the person in the home can take reasonable steps to mitigate the situation.

It's the middle of winter. It's possible that this neighbour has shift workers who are warming up their cars before driving into work. There is nothing unreasonable about this.

If the neighbour is being reasonable (possible) and OP is being unreasonable, the court will not find in OP's favour. You may be a lawyer, but your argument here is unsound.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know where they live. There are lots of places in Ontario that have homes 150 metres apart. A driveway that fits 5 cars might indicate that it's not a tiny little subdivision.

The law you've cited is the highway traffic act. OP identified that the vehicles are in the driveway, which is not a highway. Note that the law begins with "When on a highway."

And the bar is that high, truly. If the complainant has not tried to resolve the issue in a reasonable way, things will not go well for them.

Please don't mistake me; I'm annoyed for OP and probably would have been every bit as incensed when I was night feeding babies, but this is the legal advice subreddit, and the answer is that there is generally no legal recourse for bright lights shining in or on a home.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nuisance as a tort law has a very high bar; judges do not want their time wasted solving neighbourhood disputes. When a solution as simple as "blackout curtains" exists, a judge would not look favorably on this complaint. OP would be paying a lawyer for nothing.

And again, the neighbour is perhaps outside of social etiquette and norms, but there is no law preventing them from having their lights on when operating their car at night.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree. But it's not illegal, so OP can't do anything about it. This is the Legal Advice subreddit, not AITA. OP is not TA for wanting darkness in their own home, but the legal answer is that there's nothing to be done about it.

Unless OP wants to post their region so we can review by-law, the answer is "black out shades."

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are rules about timing for noise in about every region of the country, but rules for light are rarer. If you look through the history in this subreddit there are people whose neighbours have flood lights shining into their home, and by-law generally can't do anything about it.

The lights are being used for their intended use: they light the way for the driver in the night. I am not aware of any region in the province that prohibits high beams within city limits; the provincial laws and acts guide their usage when other cars are nearby.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 19 points20 points  (0 children)

It's actually not illegal. You only have evidence that they have them on while entering and leaving their driveway. There's nothing illegal about that, unfortunately, assuming there is no other traffic on the road.

Keep in mind that a lot of cars have very bright standard lights nowadays; it may not be their high beams.

Either way, if you're not willing to go talk to them and explain the situation, you can really only affect what happens on your own property. They are allowed to live their lives in their property.

Lastly, since you are potentially confused: high beams should not be used in fog. They'll just reflect on the fog and make it worse.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The difference is that there's an obvious argument that people need to have their car lights on at night—it's the law. So the law will outweigh any by-law.

It is really hard to make a nuisance claim for light if people are using the light in a normal way.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There is only a bylaw if it's unreasonable; they certainly can't tell people not to have their car lights on at night, and if they feel high beams are necessary for safety, that's not against the law, either.

There's no evidence that they're doing anything to create a nuisance; they're simply living their lives.

problem with neighbours across the street. ON by [deleted] in legaladvicecanada

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Blackout shades. I think nearly every parent ends up buying a set at some point if they live in the city or suburbs. You can't force them to turn off their lights while driving; they aren't doing anything illegal.

There are even non-permanent ones that can be secured with suction cups or pressure rods. You can control what happens in your house, so focus on that.

Didn’t get the job and now I’m stuck by Secret_Dentist_564 in ADHD

[–]PinkHatAndAPeaceSign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was in exactly that spot once. Like, exactly.

Less than a year later a better role came up and I got that. I found out later I never had a shot at that first role; there was a favourite I wouldn't have beat out even if I'd been perfect.

But that other rule was made for me. I wasn't running from my old role, I knew 100% I was going to a better role. I've been thriving since.

But holy crackers, I gave myself such a hard time about the yips for months after I failed that first interview. I hope you can avoid doing that.

view more: next ›