B.C. property owners have been ordered to stop interfering with their neighbours’ attempts to build a backyard fence, with a judge describing their conduct during the lengthy dispute as “malicious and escalating.”
Timothy Rudolph Kam Bong Chan and Carmine Yuk Kam Lee have been trying to build the fence since June 2022, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision, which outlines the lengths to which their neighbours, Shih Ju Liang and Shan Zhou have gone to prevent that from happening.
“To date, there is no fence between the parties’ backyard property lines,” the judgment handed down Tuesday says.
The conflict stemmed from the fact that the old fence was built in the wrong location and “made it appear to the defendants that their backyard was larger than it actually was,” Judge Elizabeth McDonald wrote.
Despite two surveys showing that the old fence was not built on the property line, the Zhous “continued to obstruct the fence installation work, even resorting to pushing material and people to cause the work to stop,” the decision says.
In addition to granting an injunction prohibiting the Zhous and their relatives from further interfering with the construction, the judge ordered them to pay $10,000 in damages for trespass and nuisance and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Escalating conflict
The decision describes several backyard confrontations where an “elderly couple,” identified as the Zhous’ parents yelled at workers, moved fence posts, and physically blocked the work from continuing.
On one occasion, the police were called and the officer recommended that construction be halted in order to prevent things from escalating further.
“Due to the ongoing conflicts between the defendants and Ms. Zhou’s parents, the plaintiffs’ have not constructed their new backyard fence. The plaintiffs’ evidence is that they are not able to use their backyard due to their concerns about confrontations with the defendants and lack of privacy,” the decision says.
In August 2023, the Zhous installed a security camera pointed at their backyard and that of their neighbours.
“The camera is equipped with a motion sensor and when the defendants enter their backyard, the camera emits a loud recorded message that says, ‘Hi, you are currently being recorded,'” the decision says.
“Ms. Lee’s evidence is that when the motion sensor goes off, she can hear the warning inside her home and even when the windows and doors are closed. Ms. Lee also states when she is in her backyard and the sensor and warning go off, the defendants will come and watch her through their window. Ms. Lee states that she avoids going into her backyard as a result of the camera and the many confrontations with the defendants.”
Four months later, Chan and Lee filed a notice of civil claim.
The Zhous denied the allegations, saying that they have not interfered with construction. They also said that it was, in fact, their neighbours and the workers who were trying to build the fence who had trespassed on their property and caused a nuisance.
In support of that claim, the Zhous provided a photograph of a worker standing on their side of the property line on one occasion.
McDonald found that this was a “temporary and incidental” occurrence, which made sense in the context of a fence being built on a property line.
$21,050 in damages awarded
The behaviour of the Zhous and their relatives, on the other hand, was found to constitute nuisance and trespass and warranted an award of $10,000 in damages.
“I accept the evidence of the plaintiffs regarding the foreseeable mental distress and aggravation that they have experienced because of the defendants’ conduct. For nearly a year and a half, the plaintiffs have been forced to repeatedly stop and postpone the new fence project,” McDonald wrote.
“The plaintiffs have endured loss of privacy, loss of use and enjoyment of their backyard. They and their contractors have endured repeated verbal and physical harassment by the defendants and/or their guests.”
In deciding to award punitive damages, McDonald said that the Zhous’ conduct was worthy of rebuke.
“Deciding to award punitive damages involves consideration of the defendants’ culpability, as well as general and specific deterrence,” she wrote.
“I find an award of punitive damages is warranted in all of the circumstances to sanction the behaviour of the defendants which the evidence establishes is not just inappropriate, but also malicious and escalating.”
The Zhous were also ordered to pay $1,050 to compensate their neighbours for the cost of doing a land survey for a total award of $21,050.
