Two Summerland brothers involved in a feud with their neighbour’s mushroom farm have been ordered to pay $2,000 after a lengthy court battle with RCMP and Crown prosecutors was dismissed.

In an Aug. 28 decision, BC Supreme Court Justice William Veenstra said Bradley and Darren Besler’s claims of negligence and malicious prosecution by the authorities were without merit.

The Besler brothers had attempted to sue RCMP officers and Crown prosecutors involved in their lengthy battle against their neighbours, What the Fungus mushroom farm.

However, Justice Veenstra dismissed all of the brothers’ claims.

“With respect to the claim in malicious prosecution… the (RCMP and Crown) had no material involvement in the prosecution of the criminal complaints against the (brothers),” the Justice said. “The claim is manifestly without merit, and there is no genuine issue for trial.”

The case was originally shot down by the Supreme Court but in spring 2025 overturned by the BC Court of Appeal.

The issue dates back to at least 2019 when the brothers got into a public spat with the neighbouring mushroom farm. The dispute led to a criminal conviction for mischief, which was later overturned, and numerous other civil court files, including a claim of defamation against the Mayor of Summerland, and files that had cost the taxpayers in that district hundreds of thousands.

Whether the feud will continue isn’t known, as the mushroom farm and the Beslers’ home were both destroyed in the recent Bald Range wildfire, which razed or damaged about 150 structures in Summerland.

The current case centres on the 2021 criminal conviction for mischief that was later overturned.

After the charges were laid in December 2019, the Beslers made a complaint to the RCMP’s Civilian Review and Complaints Commission regarding the officers who had investigated the file.

The Beslers then sued the officers, along with the individuals who investigated the officers, along with several Crown prosecutors.

The decision goes through a lengthy overview of numerous reports that were made about the file.

Highlighting “gaps” noted in the RCMP complaints process, the Beslers made numerous claims.

The Beslers accuse one RCMP report of having “false information, speculation and conjecture” because they didn’t agree with its characterization, the Justice said.

However, the Justice didn’t buy what they were saying.

“The (Beslers) are clearly of the view that the RCMP public complaints process is a tool to be used in the defence of a criminal proceeding. That view infuses the claims they advance against the Applicants as well as the positions they have taken on this proceeding,” the Justice said.

The Justice said the Beslers rely on comments in the reports to demonstrate bias and ulterior motives by prosecutors, although none could be found.

The Justice said the brothers had an “inaccurate view” of the function of the RCMP public complaints process and that Crown prosecutors were aware of the information in the various complaint reports, and if that information had made a difference, they would have acted on it.

Ultimately, Justice Veenstra dismissed the case and ordered the brothers pay $2,000 in costs, as requested by the defendants.

It’s unclear where the case is, but in January the Beslers launched a case against another Crown prosecutor accusing him of ignoring evidence in their long-running feud.