The City of Vancouver was involved in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision regarding property damage thanks to a “cherry or plum tree.”
In a publicly posted decision, Stephen Gibson claimed $3,899.18 for repairs to an aluminum fence damaged by a tree limb. Vancouver owns the boulevard in front of Gibson’s property where the tree stood.
Represented by an employee, the City claimed it wasn’t liable “because it followed its street tree maintenance policy,” finding no indicators of decay.
The evidence in this tribunal case dates back to August 16, 2019, when Gibson called the City about the tree he wanted replaced. He also called on March 6, 2020.
In March 2020, a certified arborist sent the City a report suggesting that the tree posed a “medium risk,” recommending that it be removed for numerous reasons.
A different arborist certified by the City replied to the report, saying that it would not remove the tree.
Two years later, in November 2022, a large limb fell off the tree during a significant snowfall, damaging Gibson’s picket fence. One month later, on December 5, Gibson’s tenant advised the City about the damage, sending photos. A day later, a City employee took down the rest of the tree, noticing internal damage but “no visible outwardly signs of decay or defects.”
The tribunal needed to determine whether the City’s response breached standard care. The City of Vancouver manages around 150,000 trees, and there’s a street bylaw that says all boulevard trees are the City’s property and are under the care and control of the park board.
“I find the decision in question here is the City’s decision to leave the tree as it was after receiving Mr. Gibson’s service requests.”
It added that the City owed him a duty of care because of the service request from Gibson.
Both arborists used in this case were at odds. The City’s arborist was critical of the arborist that Gibson used.
“This knowledge obligated the City to at least conduct an in-person inspection of the tree and reach its own conclusions about the extent of internal decay and the appropriate course of action. The City did not do that. By failing to do that, the City did not follow its Tree Inspection Policy, which said that all citizen service requests would lead to an inspection,” the tribunal said.
The City of Vancouver was ordered to pay Gibson $3,698.01 for the tree damage, which included $2,966.78 in total damages and the rest in tribunal fees.