Lyonel Doherty
Times-Chronicle
There’s a reason why the Town of Oliver has a Good Neighbour Bylaw – it just wants people to get along.
Well, that’s easier said than done sometimes.
Case in point: What’s that sign April Noble has been carrying in front of her house on Okanagan Street? “Do you want a camera pointed in your yard? Not me.”
Noble has been protesting the actions of her neighbour over what she alleges is an invasion of privacy. She explained her unease after her neighbour installed a closed circuit TV camera that she claimed was pointing into her backyard. So she responded by erecting a large billboard-type sign to block the camera. The sign reads: “Please take the camera down that is directed in my yard. I enjoy my privacy, in that it is my right to do so. I am not asking anything unreasonable. I will be willing to remove this notice upon you never invade my privacy. Thank you.”
Noble said she had a friend talk to the neighbour, asking him to take the camera down, but he refused.
Noble subsequently contacted bylaw enforcement and the RCMP, but she said their response was basically to hire a lawyer.
“This goes beyond a neighbours’ dispute. This is a violation of people’s rights. The bylaw should have something in place to protect people in their own backyards.”
Diane Vaykovich, the Town’s corporate officer, said that surveillance cameras are allowed, but people’s privacy should be considered.
“The neighbour does not have the right to record you or anyone else without consent in areas with respect to reasonable expectation of privacy,” she said.
Director of Development Services Randy Houle said he can’t see anything in the Town’s bylaws that specifically prohibits cameras.
Oliver RCMP Sgt. Don Wrigglesworth said they try to mediate as best as they can in these situations.
“The camera owner (in this case) was spoken with again and advised to redirect the angle which I think he will comply with. We’ll wait and see.”
The Times-Chronicle approached the neighbours who were willing to tell their side of the story but didn’t want their names published. They are seniors; he is 78 and she is 74.
He started off by saying the so-called cameras are not cameras at all, they are motion-sensor lights. The one device that looks like a camera is actually fake, bought at a dollar store for $10. He said he clearly explained this to Noble but she apparently didn’t listen.
Oliver resident April Noble says she will take down her billboard sign when the neighbour removes his video cameras. Shown here is one of the devices seemingly pointed into her yard. But the owner says this is a motion sensor light, not a camera.
(Photo by April Noble)
The man said the issue started two years ago when Noble started building (attaching items, such as plywood) on the fence that separates the two properties. At one point Noble attached old, colourful doors to the fence. A teddy bear is stuffed in one section with its butt facing the neighbour’s fake camera.
The man said Noble has now turned the situation into a privacy matter.
“Which is okay. I don’t care. People like their privacy . . . but little by little over the two years we’ve had enough.”
The neighbours are now going through bylaw enforcement to seek a remedy for Noble attaching items to his fence, which they fear will impact their property values.
The man said the sensors and fake camera were never aimed into Noble’s yard and there was never any intention to invade her privacy.
Both man and wife called Noble’s protest actions unnecessary and “extreme.”
The woman said Noble asked to see their video monitors to determine what they were filming. They told her they weren’t filming anything.
“This has been brooding for two years. She’s been brewing it and building it and brewing it and it’s come to this,” the man said.
The couple stated they feel like victims being unfairly targeted in this case.
“We’re just law-abiding seniors living our lives and we’ve come across this situation that has extremely got out of control,” he said.
Noble reiterated that the Town of Oliver should provide more support for residents who are impacted by the actions of neighbours who invade privacy.
Pat Pugsley, a friend of Noble, spoke to the neighbours on her behalf and asked if they would remove the camera, which was pointed towards her backyard.
“Basically, they ended up disagreeing with me and saying, ‘please leave our premise,’ and I just left.”
Pugsley said, under the Good Neighbour Bylaw, the Town should at least issue a warning to the neighbour “just to keep the general peace.”
Pugsley said the neighour does have the right to have security on his property but not the way it (the camera) is angled.
“You need to parallel your security camera functions. You cannot cross over abundantly onto the neighbours on the pretense that you are simply making it secure in your driveway.”
Noble said she doesn’t mind security cameras but they shouldn’t be pointing in someone’s yard.
Both Noble and Pugsley referred to one of the black devices as a camera, but as the neighbour pointed out to the Times-Chronicle, it is merely a motion sensor light. And the silver device next to it is a fake camera, the neighbour reiterated.
But Noble begs to differ, saying she believes the black device is a real camera.
Noble was asked why she is still protesting when the devices are no longer pointed into her backyard. She said she could take the billboard sign down and see what happens, but she fears the cameras could be re-positioned after that.
“I’m making a statement,” she said.
Noble said the bylaw officer requested that she take the sign down and cut down the doors that are attached to the fence because they exceed six feet in height.
