British Columbia homeowner is charged in $35,000 by court for cutting down a neighbor’s trees to improve the Shuswap Lake view

A British Columbia woman gave her neighbours permission to trim a few small saplings on her property. She set a three-inch diameter limit and told them the trees had to remain at least six or seven feet tall. What happened next became a four-year legal dispute over property rights, damaged trees, lost shade and a view of Shuswap Lake.

Jacalyn Hays has now been awarded the maximum $35,000 available in the Provincial Court of British Columbia’s Small Claims Court after a judge found six neighbours liable for trespass over the cutting and topping of trees on her property. The defendants were found jointly and severally liable for the judgment.

It started with permission to trim small saplings

Hays and the defendants own recreational properties in Sicamous, British Columbia, with the defendants’ property sitting above hers. Both properties overlook Shuswap Lake. In July 2021, Alan Fenton asked Hays for permission to trim or top trees on the hillside to improve the neighbours’ lake view.


According to Hays, the permission was very specific. Only small saplings near the top of the hillside and close to the defendants’ property line could be trimmed. They could not be more than three inches in diameter and had to be left standing at least six or seven feet high.

Hays also told Fenton that larger trees closer to her residence were not to be touched. Those trees, she said, helped stabilize the hillside and provided shade to her property. There was another condition: the defendants had to remove the debris created by the trimming because it presented a potential fire hazard.

Almost a year later, much larger trees were cut

The actual tree cutting took place on the July long weekend in 2022, almost a year after the original conversation. By then, Hays was not at the property. When she returned, she discovered that some saplings larger than the permitted three inches had been cut, while others had been cut to ground level. She also found trimming debris that she and her son had to remove.

But the more serious damage was discovered when she returned the following July. Several mature trees in the lower and middle portions of the hillside had been topped by between 20 and 40 feet. A mature paper birch, approximately eight inches in diameter and 50 feet tall, had also been felled and left on the property.

The defendants did not dispute that they had arranged for trees on Hays' property to be cut. Their explanation was different. They testified that Fenton had told them Hays had given permission to cut or top whichever trees they wanted to improve their lake view.

The court found the misunderstanding wasn't enough

This became the central question in the case. The judge accepted that the other defendants genuinely believed Fenton had told them they had permission to cut certain trees. But that did not end the matter. The court found that the defendants could easily have contacted Hays themselves.

Almost a year had passed since the original permission. The judge concluded that a simple phone call or email could have clarified exactly what Hays had authorized. Instead, the defendants proceeded on second-hand information.

The court ultimately found it unreasonable for them to authorize cutting any trees other than the small saplings Hays had actually permitted them to trim.

There was another problem. The person who carried out the work was unlicensed and uninsured, something that became apparent after equipment being used by the tree cutter became detached from a vehicle and was struck by a train on nearby railway tracks. The judge said the defendants had no business making assumptions about the tree cutter's licensing and insurance on Hays' behalf.

A recorded conversation became important evidence

Hays had also recorded a conversation with Fenton in August 2023. During the conversation, she reiterated what she said she had originally authorized: small saplings no more than three inches in diameter, near the top of the lot, and left six or seven feet high.

Fenton did not respond by saying that Hays had actually authorized the larger trees. Instead, he acknowledged that something had gone wrong. He said: “It’s a fu***p Jacalyn … and I have to take responsibility.”

The recording also referred to a statement by another defendant suggesting the group believed they had Hays' approval and should simply proceed.

The judge concluded that the conversation showed there had been a serious mistake or misunderstanding surrounding what Hays had authorized. Fenton later died before the trial concluded, as did his spouse Elizabeth Fenton. The court nevertheless continued to determine the liability of the defendants.

The trees changed how Hays could use her property

Hays told the court that the trees had provided important shade around her holiday home, which she generally used during the summer. After the trees were topped, her home and backyard received direct sunlight from about 11 a.m. until late afternoon.

The judge accepted that the loss of shade affected Hays' comfort and enjoyment of the property.

An arborist who inspected the property also testified that topping large, mature cedar trees is not recommended arboricultural practice. The cuts leave large wounds that can make trees more vulnerable to insects and disease. Even if they survive, topped trees may never recover their original shape and can require continuing maintenance.

Hays also hired a geotechnical company to assess the potential effect of tree death on the stability of the slope.

Why did the court award exactly $35,000?

The figure wasn't arbitrary. Hays claimed expenses associated with restoring shade and comfort to her home and backyard. These included a shade structure, installation, related construction work, air-conditioning units, professional reports and other expenses.

The court accepted most of those expenses but rejected the cost of replacing 10 trees because, more than four years after the topping, the cedars appeared to be doing well and were still performing their slope-stabilizing functions.

The judge calculated Hays' reasonable economic damages at $34,064.43. Hays was also entitled to compensation for loss of amenity — essentially, the loss of enjoyment and comfort associated with her property.

The judge said an award between $5,000 and $10,000 would have been appropriate for that loss. But because Small Claims Court could award no more than $35,000, the judge awarded the remaining $935.57, bringing the total to the maximum $35,000.

What does this mean for property owners?

The case is a useful reminder that permission to enter or work on someone else's property is not necessarily blanket permission to do whatever seems reasonable.

Here, the court accepted that the defendants genuinely believed they had received permission through Fenton. But the critical point was that the permission was second-hand, almost a year old and involved work that materially affected another person's property.

The judge found that confirming the permission directly with Hays would have required little effort. Instead, mature trees were topped, a 50-foot birch was felled and the resulting changes affected the shade, appearance and enjoyment of Hays' property.

The final order requires all six defendants to pay Hays $35,000, plus $156 in filing fees and $20 in service fees, for a total of $35,176. Prejudgment interest on the $35,000 judgment is also payable, with the judgment due in full by October 1, 2026, unless a payment hearing has been scheduled.