A woman from British Columbia who repeatedly trespassed on her neighbor's property and cut the tops of cedar trees with a chainsaw has been ordered to pay nearly $150,000 in damages.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case in June, but the decision was published online last Thursday. In it, Judge Amy DeFrancis stated that the tree vandal did not provide any applicable defense and did not attend court when the ruling was issued in the civil case.

The neighboring properties were separated by a chain-link fence, with a cedar wood fence on one side, owned by company numbered 0973210 Ltd., according to the ruling.

DeFrancis wrote, "The cedar fence provides a complete barrier of privacy between the two properties, which was appreciated by the two individuals who lived in the plaintiff's property."

The court heard that Sukhuinder Kaur Khattkar entered her neighbor's property on several occasions between July and December 2021.

The court heard that "the trespass was clearly proven through photographs and videos, which included, among other things, a video of the defendant climbing the plaintiff's fence on their property and holding a chainsaw."

In addition, DeFrancis noted that evidence showed police were called on at least two occasions, and one officer told Khattkar that her actions constituted trespass and that she did not have the right to trim the trees.

The ruling stated, "About 30 minutes after the officer left, the defendant returned to the plaintiff's property and continued to damage the plaintiff's cedar trees in direct violation of the police warning, not to mention the repeated warnings from the plaintiff."

By December 2021, 75 trees had been damaged. Their height of 15 feet had been reduced to only four or five feet. Additionally, a hole was cut in the chain-link fence.

Judge stated, “The cedar wood fence and the chain-link fence have suffered permanent damage.”

The numbered company filed a lawsuit against Khattkar for trespassing, seeking reimbursement for the cost of replanting the fence, general damages as compensation for its loss, and punitive damages.

The judge "had no problem" granting the plaintiffs the full cost to repair the damage, which amounted to $59,915.73.

The judge also found that the trees planted in the replacement fence would take between eight to ten years to grow to the height of the trees that "were irreparably harmed due to the defendant’s actions." For this reason, the court found that "the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the loss of use and enjoyment of the trees to the extent that the corrective actions do not fully compensate for what has been lost."

The owners were seeking $75,000, which represented $1,000 per tree, as compensation for loss of amenities, loss of privacy, and loss of enjoyment. However, the judge determined that $50,000 would be sufficient. An additional amount of $3,575 was awarded as special damages for the cost of a specialized tree-planting report.

DeFrancis agreed with the plaintiff that punitive damages were warranted in the case to condemn Khattkar's behavior and deter others from similar conduct.

The defendant's trespass on another's property was an intentional act carried out with disregard for her neighbor's property rights. The judge stated that the defendant repeatedly intruded on the plaintiff's property, despite clear communications and warnings refusing to allow her, including communications from the police, "such reckless disregard for the property rights of others must be deterred."

This damage was estimated at $35,000.

The judge also issued an injunction preventing Khattkar from entering or interfering with the plaintiff's property.