Dispute between Vernon neighbours over tree pruning ends with legal challenge

A neighbourly dispute about overhanging tree branches has left a Vernon senior housing society in the red after it failed in its legal challenge to get its neighbour to pay for pruning.

According to a May 27 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Abbeyfield Houses of Vernon Society took its neighbour, James Budrow, to the online small claims court arguing he should pay the $1,470 to have the trees trimmed.

The decision said several large trees in Budrow’s yard run along the length of the property line and their branches overhang into the Abbeyfield Houses property with some of the branches touching the roof and the guttering of the two-storey building.

In spring 2023, the housing society asked Budrow to come and trim the branches affecting their property. They said he agreed but then later refused.

Abbeyfield Houses asked several times over the year, but Budrow didn’t trim the branches.

By the end of the year, the seniors’ housing society paid an arborist $1,470 to come and trim the trees.

Abbeyfield Houses then took Budrow to the small claims court arguing he should pay the bill.

“(Abbeyfield Houses) says the encroaching trees caused a nuisance, and that (Budrow) is liable to pay for the trimming on (their) side of the property line. (Abbeyfield Houses) also says the encroaching trees damaged the roof and eavestroughs on (its) house,” the decision read.

Budrow argued it wasn’t his responsibility to prune the trees on their side of the fence.

The Tribunal said it’s well-established that a property owner can trim overhanging branches on their land and Budrow would only be responsible for the costs if the branches were a “nuisance.”

Abbeyfield Houses argued the branches were a nuisance and provided the Tribunal with pictures and an aerial video along with a statement from the building’s manager Andy Betschler.

The building manager said the branches had started damaging the roof shingles in certain areas.

However, the Tribunal ruled the photos and video footage weren’t close enough to show specific evidence of damage.

“Andy Betschler did not describe or explain the alleged roof shingle damage in sufficient detail for me to conclude that the overhanging trees, and not some other factor, such as age or normal wear and tear, could have caused the alleged roof shingle damage,” the Tribunal ruled. “So, I do not find Andy Betschler’s opinion on this matter persuasive.”

The housing society argued that leaves and debris from the trees had collected on the roof and in the gutters.

Again, the Tribunal ruled Abbeyfield Houses hadn’t described any specific damage that the leaves or debris had caused.

“Although the photographs show that the overhanging branches are unsightly, I am not persuaded by the available evidence that they unreasonably interfered with (Abbeyfield Houses) use and enjoyment of its property,” the Tribunal ruled. “So, I find that the encroaching trees were not a nuisance. For that reason, I dismiss the… claim.”

The Tribunal’s move leaves the housing society responsible for the $1,470 arborist’s bill.