A British Columbia real estate agent has been rebuked by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) for trespassing onto his neighbors' property and cutting down their cherry laurel hedge without consent. The tribunal awarded compensatory and punitive damages, citing the agent's disregard for property rights.
The dispute arose when Davinder Brar, a real estate agent, cut down a five-meter-high hedge of 30 cherry laurel trees that bordered his property and his neighbors'. The neighbors reported that Brar undertook this action in January 2022 without their prior knowledge or consent. They discovered the removal only after the fact, as they did not reside at the property full-time.
Brar's defense was that the hedge was overgrown and extended beyond the neighbors' property line. He also claimed the neighbors had agreed to the hedge's removal at his expense and to share the cost of a new fence and plants, an agreement they allegedly failed to uphold.
The CRT determined that the neighbors unequivocally owned the hedge and that Brar's complete removal of it, even if parts extended over the property line, was prohibited by law. Text message evidence presented to the tribunal failed to substantiate Brar's claim of consent, leading to the finding that he had trespassed.
While the neighbors settled their claim for the cost of replacing the hedge, accepting Brar's payment for new trees and stump removal, they pursued separate claims for the loss of privacy and enjoyment provided by the original, taller hedge. They argued the old hedge offered superior privacy and reduced noise, dust, and pollution from a nearby busy road.
Based on legal precedent, the tribunal awarded $3,000 in compensatory damages to the neighbors for the loss of privacy and enjoyment. Furthermore, the CRT awarded $2,000 in punitive damages, a rare measure, citing Brar's reckless behavior and lack of justification for removing the hedge in front of the neighbors' property as well. The tribunal stated that as a real estate agent and property developer, Brar should have been aware that trespassing and removing the hedge without explicit consent was unacceptable.
Brar and his legal counsel declined to comment on the tribunal's decision.