Crane Overswing Agreement

It should also be noted that it can be much more difficult to bring a harassment action than the same facts. Unlike harassment, transgression does not require evidence of actual damage or damage – which can be difficult to prove in a vibration case. In addition, the relevance of the alleged interference in the operation and enjoyment of the applicant`s land, including its duration and extent, should be considered. In addition, in troublesome litigation, it is also a matter for the courts to balance the competing interests of the parties. On the other hand, the transgression focuses more on the applicant`s property rights than on the defendant`s conduct. Therefore, if a court followed Janda and found that the appropriate remedy was more harassment than transgression, the applicant would likely have more difficulty in determining his case. Yet Aaron pushes the parties to negotiate. “My advice is to make sure that you treat the neighbors and make them a fair and reasonable offer for air rights and a crane swing contract,” Aaron said. A: A licensing agreement must be entered into between you and the developer and/or contractor to protect you and ensure that you are covered to repair crane damage or crane operation problems. In order to ensure that all legal issues are covered, you must seek legal advice before entering into an agreement with the owner or adjacent contractor.

Below, there are a few things to remember if you are approached for a crane swing and support agreement on your property. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that, although the spire of the defendant`s crane had occasionally entered the applicant`s airspace, it was not necessarily an offence and therefore an injunction was not appropriate. If your neighbour only facilitates a crane swing, without any relief for construction work, the number of compensations is generally lower. In Janda Group Holdings Inc. vs. Concost Management Inc. (2016 BCSC 1503), the BC Supreme Court amended this presumption in British Columbia. The judge considered the little little circumstantial and inconsistent pre-law and concluded that the passage of the crane`s boom during the construction period was not occasionally an offence, but a nuisance that is not due by default, but with damages.