Burns v Araghi

The dispute in Burns v Araghi was between the respondents, who were residents of a residential subdivision, and the appellants, who were the owners of a property within the subdivision. The primary issue was whether a privacy screen and handrail constructed by the appellants above their garage exceeded the height restriction imposed by a covenant attached to their property. The covenant limited the height of any building on the property to eight feet, aiming to protect the views and privacy of adjacent properties. The appellants argued that the screen and handrail were not considered a 'building' under the covenant and thus not subject to the height restriction. The respondents contended that the screen and handrail constituted a building and that their construction above the garage constituted a breach of the covenant.

The court had to determine whether the screen and handrail were indeed a 'building' and, if so, whether their construction above the garage constituted a breach of the covenant. The court considered the purpose of the covenant, which was to protect the views and privacy of the respondents, and whether the appellants' construction of the screen and handrail had any impact on these aspects. The court found that the screen and handrail were indeed a building under the covenant, and their construction above the garage did breach the covenant. The court also noted that while the primary purpose of the covenant was to protect views and privacy, the construction of the screen and handrail had the additional benefit of providing privacy and security, which aligned with the collateral benefits of the covenant. The court concluded that the appellants' actions constituted a breach of the covenant, and the respondents were entitled to an injunction to remove the screen and handrail.

The court ordered that the appellants remove the privacy screen and handrail constructed above their garage within a specified period. The court also granted the respondents an injunction preventing the appellants from constructing any similar structures above the garage in the future. Additionally, the court awarded the respondents their costs of the proceedings.