Fence fight leads to costly legal battle between B.C. neighbours | Daily Hive

idham djuanda/Shutterstock

Two neighbours duked it out in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, and the legal fight stemmed from a fence between the neighbours’ properties.

The applicants in the case (KL and BL) alleged that the respondents’ fence encroached onto their yard, causing damage to their property. They claimed $1,000 in damages.

In response, the neighbours (PB and CS) filed a counterclaim, alleging that their fence and plants were damaged, and that KL and BL dumped garbage on their property and cut off their access to cedar wood. They claimed a total of $2,580 in damages.

The tribunal sided with the applicants and here’s why.

You might also like:

The respondents built a fence around their property, primarily made out of tarps, in 2021. According to the applicants, the tarps have been deteriorating, shedding pieces into their yard, and contaminating the soil.

The issue has persisted since 2021, but the respondents have not addressed it.

“The respondents deny that the tarps are deteriorating. They say the applicants damaged the fence by slashing it, using a high-pressure hose, and by using a fire pit near the fence. They also say the applicants never raised this issue with them and they were unaware of any damage on the applicants’ side of the fence,” the tribunal decision says.

They did admit that a blizzard damaged the fence in 2022, but that they’ve since repaired it.

The tribunal didn’t accept the claim that the applicants slashed the fence, with the exception of one portion of the fencing that the applicants admitted to.

“The applicants do admit they slashed one tarp, but say this was necessary because, on two occasions, the respondents shoved a ‘stove insert’ through their fence, which stretched the applicants’ wire fence,” the tribunal’s decision states.

“The photos in evidence show that the tarps are disintegrating in multiple places and gradually coming apart. I find it obvious that an ordinary garden hose and a small fire cannot damage a tarp in the way alleged by the respondents,” the tribunal added.

According to the tribunal’s decision, it felt that the fence was poorly constructed.

KL and BL didn’t offer enough evidence to prove that the tarp pieces were contaminated in their yard.

“Though they did not use this term, I find that the applicants are claiming damages under the law of nuisance,” the tribunal noted.

On that front, the tribunal agreed that the respondents’ fence constituted a nuisance to the applicant, which is how it awarded damages.

“I find that damages of $500 to each of the applicants, for a total of $1,000, is appropriate. So, I order the respondents to pay the applicants $1,000.”

Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on X