A dispute between a British Columbia couple and their neighbors regarding trees on the property line has been resolved, with the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) dismissing the couple’s claim. Jane and Wayne Lee sought $4,500 for potential deck repairs and argued the trees posed a safety hazard and created a nuisance.

The Dispute and Claims

The Lees, who have lived in their home for roughly 45 years, claimed that six Douglas fir trees and one acacia tree – ranging from 16 to 25 meters in height – on the neighboring property caused damage and inconvenience. Their complaints included falling branches, needles, cones, and sap accumulating on their deck and roof, requiring frequent gutter cleaning and snow removal. They also stated the debris made their deck unusable.

Neighbors' Response

Andrew and Catherine Speirs, who purchased their property in 2020, stated the wooded yard was a key attraction. They acknowledged some debris fell onto the Lees’ property but questioned whether the source was solely their trees and if the amount had increased over time. They also highlighted the abundance of trees surrounding the Lees’ own home.

Tribunal's Decision

The CRT member, Deanna Rivers, determined the Lees did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. The tribunal found no proof the trees presented a safety hazard, noting a lack of evidence of branch falls outside of extreme weather events.

Lack of Evidence of Damage

Rivers also found the photographic evidence presented did not demonstrate visible damage to the deck, such as tearing or staining. She pointed out the Lees expanded their deck in 2005, bringing it closer to the trees, which would naturally increase debris accumulation.

Nuisance Claim Rejected

The tribunal concluded the issues presented were an inconvenience, not an unreasonable interference with the Lees’ property. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the frequency of deck cleaning or the use of preventative measures. Ultimately, the CRT dismissed the Lees’ claim, stating they had not proven the trees constituted a legal nuisance.

This case emphasizes the importance of providing substantial evidence when pursuing property-related claims.