The plaintiff, P is a school teacher. He and his family have been neighbours of the defendant N family since 2008. There have been tensions between them since 2011. The tensions also led to the defendant making a number of postings concerning the plaintiff on the internet social platform Facebook, on June 9, 2014. The comments included statements calling P a "nutter" and a "creep" (and impliedly suggesting he abused children), and accusing him of using a system of cameras and mirrors to keep her backyard, and her children, under 24-hour surveillance. N had more than 2,000 Facebook "friends", any of whom may have had copies of N's posts transmitted to their own Facebook pages. N also had her privacy settings set to "Public", allowing her posts to be viewed not only by her more than 2,000 "friends", but by all Facebook users. Numerous comments made by N' "friends" contained more explicit denunciations of the plaintiff's alleged behaviour.

Problems between the two neighbours began in 2011 when N and her husband installed a large fish pond along her rear property line. The structure is on two levels, with water flowing along its length of approximately 20 or 25 feet, and flowing over two waterfalls. The noise emanating from the water cascading over the rocks is significant and the plaintiff and his wife testified has disrupted their sleep. The plaintiff's evidence is that the waterfall has run day and night almost continuously since its construction in 2011; there was a brief period in the summer of 2012, when the defendant shut off the flow of water at night after the plaintiff complained to the municipality, but its operation was soon restored to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

After the plaintiff began to complain to the defendant about the waterfalls, their relationship deteriorated. There followed a number of incidents of unneighbourly conduct on the part of the defendant and her family members including the hosting of late night parties and N's two sons on more than one occasion would entering P's backyard without permission.The properties were not fenced, and on numerous occasions the N's dog wandered into his yard and defecated (at least 24 times).The defendant would park their vehicles inhibiting access to the Plaintiff's property.

Please use issue,rules,application,conclusion method (IRAC).Figure out the required elements and explain why the elements have been satisfied.Assume all of the facts above are true and can be proven in court.