Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
SCOFFLAW destroyed covenant-protected rearyard fence - GIBSON v SUN B.C. building scheme 2018/08/02 23:43  
In a judgment rendered after NINE days of trial, B.C.’s Supreme Court has awarded $ 26, 500 ( plus potentially whopping additional legal costs & disbursements ) in damages against scofflaw fence-destroying neighbour Christina Sun.

Here Ms Sun is self-represented. Her adversaries have counsel who wipes the floor with her.

With no reference to participation during the + two year war by any HOA owners association, the events unfolded in a Surrey B.C. Building Scheme called Panorama Village . Here covenants can be mutually or reciprocally cross-contracted between owners like the adversaries here.

The July 30/18 judgment holds that amidst the + two year rearyard fence war between neighbours, Ms. Sun defiantly and unlawfully destroyed the six foot high fence in her neighbours' absence. ( Not unusually : a surprise attack in the absence of the adversaries ). BUT . . .

The six foot high rearyard privacy fence is held by the judge however - to have been perfectly lawful and covenant-protected, albeit in place on a 24 inch wide easement.

The judgment - somewhat lacking in specifics - holds such fence protected by the title-registered easements within the compact community lot layout scheme.

Self-represented Ms Sun is hit by a damage award for nuisance and trespass, accompanied by $ 5 K for punitive damages within the $26, 500.

In fact Sun was held to have outrageously defied boundary surveys, easement documents and Scheme covenants, as well as being caught on tape uttering remarks ruled racist.

But the damage award could easily be far increased by the legal costs & disbursements awarded after this + nine day civil trail amidst the somewhat rare punitive damage component. Will it ever get collected against the fence smasher ?

Xcrpt Gibson v Sun :

" . . . [89] On the whole, I found Ms. Sun’s evidence to be coloured by her steadfast, but erroneous, belief that the fences were located on her property and/or contrary to the terms of the Easement, an issue to which I shall return.

[90] An issue also arose with respect to a racist comment allegedly made by Ms. Sun to Ms. Gibson and her husband.

Both parties had a different interpretation of the comment in question, which is stated on one of the videos. Ms. Sun maintains she said “Go back to your junk”, while Ms. Gibson asserts she said “Go back to your jungle”.

Having reviewed the video, it is clear that Ms. Sun said “Go back to your jungle”. . . . " unquote.

So there obviously may be some sort of penalty added for avoidable incivility too, albeit not directly.

Ms Sun’s war on survey pins

The destroyed fence’s dominant easement owners, also credibly alleged that Sun deliberately & illegally removed boundary survey markers professionally placed to re-determine the easement location ( a serious offence - Federal & provincial - in provinces like Ontario, howsoever rarely punished by well-deserved death ).

Gibson v Sun, 2018 BCSC 1277 issued July 30/18

Aug 2/18 Vancouver Province : “Good fence makes for bad neighbour in ugly Surrey spat” surrey-spat

The Vancouver Province's Facebook page discussions about this
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster