Neighbourhood fence war breaks out and is taken to court
A fence war between neighbours made its way to court at the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal.
According to the decision, Zhao Gang Ding built the fence on his neighbours Lana Ruijuan Hu and Jason Yanjun Liu’s property without their consent in September 2022. In response, the couple took Ding to court.
Long before the fence was standing along the applicants’ driveway, the tribunal member said the details Ding provided, which described what took place before the fence was installed, made it clear “there was tension between the parties.”
In a letter to Ding, Hu and Liu asked him to remove the fence but said he refused and claimed the fence was on his property.
The next month, the couple had a land survey done to verify the property boundary. This survey “undisputedly determined the respondent’s fence was on the applicants’ property,” the decision reads.
After providing this evidence, Ding accepted that the fence was built on his neighbour’s property, and he offered to move the fence onto his property. However, he said Hu and Liu “unreasonably refused” because he would not agree to place it at least two feet back from the property line.
Through the CRT, Hu and Liu, who were represented by Lana Ruijuan Hu, sought an order that the respondent remove the fence and claim a land survey fee, landscaping expenses, and general and punitive damages for the respondent’s alleged trespass, nuisance, and harassment.
Applicant’s want fence removed
While Hu and Lui pleaded for an order for the Ding to remove the fence, the tribunal member, Megan Stewart, declined and said she’d consider a $500 valuation of the fence removal as a claim for damages.
However, because they did not provide evidence of the cost of removing the fence, “I find this part of their claim unproven, and I dismiss it,” the tribunal member said.
Who’s responsible for the survey fee?
Hu and Lui also sought a claim for $2,467.50 for the survey they paid for, but Ding said he was not responsible because his neighbours challenged the “status quo.”
“Since the edge of the applicants’ driveway had been implicitly accepted as the default property boundary for 8 years, the applicants, as the parties disputing that boundary, are responsible for any expenses incurred to prove a different boundary,” he claimed, according to the decision.
It was undisputed that Ding built the fence without getting a land survey. In doing so, Stewart found that he “improperly caused the applicants to incur the survey fee” and ordered him to pay the applicants.
Claim for trespass, nuisance, and harassment damages
Additionally, the applicants sought a claim of $160 for landscaping expenses due to claims that Ding trespassed on their land and caused a nuisance. They also sought $3,000 in damages under a section of the Trespass Act.
“That section allows the Provincial Court to order a person convicted of an offence under section 2 to pay restitution to another person for the offence. The CRT is not the Provincial Court, and so has no jurisdiction to order restitution under section 8. However, I have considered the applicants’ claim at common law,” the tribunal member explained.
The respondent denies the claim for trespass, nuisance, and harassment damages.
A video submitted by Hu and Lui showed Ding and his wife removing stones and gravel from the excavated strip of land that the applicants had placed there. In doing so, Stewart believed Ding had trespassed on the applicants’ property.
They ordered the respondent to pay the applicants this amount for landscaping expenses.
Hui and Lu also shared a photo of the fence leaning on their driveway. Based on the photos, the tribunal member said they found that it likely made it more difficult to access the enclosed parking space and side driveway, creating a risk to both the fence and vehicles.
“So, I find the applicants have lost the safe use of their enclosed parking space and side driveway due to the fence’s continuing trespass,” the tribunal member said. “I award the applicants $300 in general damages for the fence’s continuing trespass.”
Ding was ordered to pay the applicants $2,467.50 for the paid survey invoice, $160 in landscaping expenses, and $301 in trespass damages. In total, with damages, pre-judgment interest, and CRT fees, he is ordered to pay $3,203.41 to Hui and Lu.
Follow Channels and Categories