A British Columbia woman who allowed her neighbours to trim some trees in 2021 later found that much more had been cut down to improve their view of Shuswap Lake. A provincial court judge has now ruled that the neighbours trespassed on her property and ordered them to pay $34,064 in damages.The case involved Sicamous resident Jacalyn Hays and several neighbours who wanted a better view of the lake, Info News reported. Hays had agreed to limited tree trimming, but the court found that the work went far beyond what she had permitted.Hays said her backyard had once been a “shaded oasis” but became “unbearable” after the trees were cut. She was also concerned about the stability of the slope near her property, which had experienced a mudslide in 2012.The dispute began in July 2021 when Hays’ neighbour, Alan Fenton, approached her about trimming trees on her property. She agreed, but allowed small saplings to be cut only if they were no more than three inches in diameter. Mature trees could only be cut to a height of six or seven feet.
Trees cut beyond the agreed limits
Hays also asked that the tree trimmings be removed because she considered them a fire hazard. According to the court decision, she specifically told Fenton not to cut the larger trees on the hillside closer to her home.Those trees were important to Hays for two reasons. They helped stabilise the slope and provided shade to her property during summer.The morning after giving permission, Hays left the area and did not return until October. When she came back to Sicamous, she found tree trimmings scattered across the ground. She also found that some trees had been cut more than she had allowed.Hays later left again and returned the following July. By then, she found further damage. Several mature trees had been cut by 20 to 40 feet, while a mature birch tree that was about 50 feet tall had been completely cut down.The cutting had changed the condition of her backyard. Hays said she had lost the shade that had previously made the yard comfortable. She was also concerned about what the removal of the larger trees could mean for the hillside.
Neighbours said they followed instructions
Hays took legal action against Alan Fenton, Elizabeth Fenton, Lee Fenton, Cheryl Fenton, William Olthius and Shelly Fenton. She argued that the group had entered her property and cut down trees without her permission.Alan and Elizabeth Fenton, who were in their 80s, died sometime after the events. The remaining defendants told the court that they believed they had received clear instructions from Alan about what work they were allowed to carry out.However, Hays had recorded a conversation with Alan while he was still alive. Judge George Leven considered the recording when assessing what had happened.“From that recording, I conclude that… Alan Fenton was apologetic and acknowledged at the very least, that he and the other defendants had made a serious mistake and were in the wrong,” the judge said.The decision also referred to a comment made by Bill Olthius during the events. He said, “Look, we got her approval…let’s don’t worry about it … let’s just get it done.”For Judge Leven, the comment showed that there was confusion about the extent of the permission Hays had given. The judge said the neighbours could have easily checked what they were allowed to do before cutting the trees.
Judge says a call could have avoided the dispute
Judge Leven said the neighbours should have confirmed exactly what Hays had agreed to before carrying out the work.“A simple telephone call or email could easily have clarified any confusion,” the Judge said. “But they proceeded without taking this simple precaution.”The judge said it would have taken almost no effort to contact Hays and confirm the instructions. Instead, the trees were cut and the neighbours benefited from the work because it improved their view of Shuswap Lake.Judge Leven ruled that all the defendants had benefited from the cutting and were liable for trespass.The court ordered them to pay Hays $34,064. The amount was intended to cover the cost of replacing the trees, an $18,000 shade structure and two air conditioning units.The judge also said Hays could have received another $5,000 to $10,000 in damages because she could no longer enjoy her yard in the way she had before the trees were removed. However, the court could not award more because the small claims court maximum of $35,000 had already been reached.
Leave a Reply