The BC Supreme Court Justice ruled the evidence by the defendants did not establish that the plaintiffs made false or spurious complaints to the police or other authorities with the intention of harassing
It could be featured in a television episode of A&E’s Neighborhood Wars.
A BC Supreme Court justice recently awarded damages for a Surrey couple in a case involving a long and heated dispute with their neighbours who had already been ordered to remove encroaching structures from the couple’s property.
The plaintiffs, Bradley Baxandall and Jennifer Nelson, sought damages after they already had a successful summary trial in 2024, when defendants Blaire Campbell and Adrianne Campbell had been found having committed a trespass and ordered to remove the structures.
The judge in the first trial found that a deck, high back fence, high front fence and a low front fence were encroachments.
Hoping to live together as a blended family, the plaintiffs in 2020 bought the residential property in the Clayton Heights area of Surrey, while their neighbours have owned an adjacent property, which has a coach house, since 2018.
When the plaintiffs acquired the property, the two sides had a conversation about the ground-level deck in the back yard of the Campbell property, said to have extended over the property line onto the Baxandall property, as well as the high wooden fence in the back yard of the Campbell property, which ran perpendicular to the property line, across the line and right up to the south wall of the Baxandall residence.
The two sides initially had “common ground” but recollections of their interactions then differed, including Campbell claiming that Baxandall became aggressive and belligerent.
Among the issues in their dispute, the plaintiffs said access to the side of their house was blocked by their neighbours’ gates and fences, and also pointed to numerous instances of aggressive and disrespectful conduct by their neighbours.
Alleged incidents over the years ranged from the removal of wooden stakes erected by surveyors, a thrown snowball, knocked over garbage bins, foul language and use of the middle finger “all the time”.
The Campbells, though, had their own allegations against their neighbours.
Things soured to the point that the Campbells put up “Beware of Dog” and “No Trespassing” signs, as well as a warning of video surveillance, while there were also video recordings of interactions.
A number of security cameras were installed on each side.
They had also called the police on each other.
Baxandall testified that he did adjust the cameras on his property as ordered by the previous judge, and it was never his intention to videotape or capture information on the private lives of his neighbours, any of their family members or tenants.
Baxandall also testified about the stench of the dog feces from both the area of the defendants’ encroachment on his property and on the adjacent area on the Campbell property, a smell so strong that they could not open their kitchen window.
A woman who lived in the basement suite of the plaintiffs’ home testified about the stench right outside her window, so she “just never opened it”.
Campbell, who claimed he regularly had the feces removed, denied telling Nelson that he had a 120-pound dog that would pin her down if she entered their property.
Baxandall also testified the siding of his home was damaged by Campbell regularly parking their truck and boat too close, while Campbell’s barbecue, placed adjacent to the siding of the plaintiffs’ home, caused the vinyl siding to warp.
They sought damages in the amount of $20,000 per year for continual intentional trespass by the defendants’ occupation of their land for four years from 2020 to 2024, an amount that didn’t include the damage caused to the siding of his garage and of his home.
Noting the evidence of the defendants and their witnesses did not support the allegations made in a counterclaim, including allegations of harassment, Justice Maria Morellato ruled the plaintiffs are entitled to $10,000 in damages for the trespass.
They were also awarded $3,000 in damages for nuisance, as well as $7,000 in punitive damages.
They are also entitled to be compensated for the cost of repair for the damage caused to the siding of their house, and are also entitled to costs.