Weber v. Hafstein, 2022 BCPC 276

Citation: Weber v. Hafstein 2022 BCPC 276 Date: 20221206 File No: 46815 Registry: Princeton IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION BETWEEN: LESLIE WEBER and KATHERINE WEBER CLAIMANTS AND: NIKOLAS HAFSTEIN, LISA MACHON and COPPER MOUNTAIN PAINTING LTD. DEFENDANTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.K. KEYES Appearing for the Applicants: L. Weber Appearing for the Defendants: A. Lee Place of Hearing: Princeton, B.C. Dates of Hearing: June 9, 10, October 13, 2022 Date of Judgment: December 6, 2022

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The claimants Mr and Mrs Weber (the “claimants” or the “Webers”) are the next-door neighbours of the defendants Mr Hafstein and his spouse Lisa Machon (or the “defendants”). The other named defendant is Mr Hafstein’s unincorporated business. Mr Hafstein’s business appears to be a sole proprietorship; as such, it has no separate legal identity from Mr Hafstein. [ 2 ] The Weber and Hafstein homes are located on sloping land. The Weber property is higher on the slope than the Hafstein property.

When Mr and Mrs Weber were away on vacation in June 2021, Mr Hafstein rented (in the name of his painting business) an excavator and engaged in an excavation project to the rear, or northwest, of his home. [ 3 ] When the Webers returned from vacation, Mr Weber discovered Mr Hafstein’s excavation project. He was dismayed. According to Mr Weber, the excavation performed by Mr Hafstein crossed the property line from Mr Hafstein’s property into the Webers’ property and excavated a large portion of the Webers’ property.

Mr Weber claims that not only did Mr Hafstein remove a large amount of soil, the excavation also removed support from his fence, shed and other structures on his property. He seeks damages for the trespass and remediation of his property. [ 4 ] The defendants’ reply does not deny excavating the Webers’ property.

However, the defendants denied that Mr Hafstein removed as much soil as Mr Weber claimed, denied that the excavation had actually caused or would cause any erosion or destabilization, asserted that the excavation went “nowhere near” the Webers’ shed and claimed that any erosion of the soil under the Webers’ shed was pre-existing. [ 5 ] At trial, the defence took the position that the claimants had not established where the property line was, because they did not hire an expert to locate the property line and testify to that effect.

Therefore, the argument goes, the claimant has not established that the defendants actually trespassed. In the alternative, the argument is that if the defendants did trespass into the Webers’ property, it was innocently done because the defendants did not know where their property line was between the two properties and that it was Mr Weber’s responsibility to clearly mark where the property line was.

Mr Hafstein also testified that since the claimants had not objected to his use of a portion of the Weber property over the years when he put out lawn chairs and tables in that area for entertaining, that he had the right to assume that the claimants would not (or perhaps could not) complain about the excavation. Finally, the defendants took the position that the damages claimed for remediation were exaggerated in order to benefit the claimants’ renovation plans and that if any remediation was required, it could be done from Mr Hafstein’s side of the property line at little cost.

DID MR HAFSTEIN TRESPASS ONTO THE WEBER PROPERTY? [ 6 ] Mr Weber produced into evidence a subdivision plan which he obtained from the BC Land Title Office that showed the location of his lot, the defendants’ lot and other neighbouring properties, including the property located on the southern boundary of both the Webers’ property and Mr Hafstein’s property, known as the “Nurses House”. Mr Weber also produced a plot plan of his property, which showed the dimensions of his lot and the placement of his home upon it. This plot plan was certified by the surveyor who prepared it in 1992, Mr Tim Hall.

Mr Weber obtained the plot plan from the previous owners of his property when he purchased it. [ 7 ] Mr Weber gave detailed evidence about his efforts to find the survey pins which mark the boundaries of his property and the property line adjacent to Mr Hafstein’s property. He used the survey plan for the subdivision and his property which he obtained from the land title office, located the survey pins to the north side of his property and measured the distance marked on the plan for property line dimensions using a tape measure and located the pins.

The pin on the uphill and southwest side of his property was buried under a substantial pile of gravel deposited there by another neighbour, so a lot of digging was required. The pin on the opposite property line (the southeast side adjacent to the Nurses House) was well marked and easily found. [ 8 ] Mr Weber put up posts and a string line from the location of the top pin to the location of the bottom pin.

He was careful to put the posts and the line several inches into his own property so that he would not run the risk of trespassing on the Hafstein property. [ 9 ] It has been argued that because Mr Weber did not hire a professional surveyor to find the pins and mark the property line, nor produce the original surveyor who surveyed the subdivision and made the plans, the court cannot be satisfied that he has in fact found the property line and marked it correctly. I do not find that argument persuasive.

Our entire Torrens system of land titles and property ownership is based on the notion that people can rely on the duly certified land title documents filed in the land title office. The legal description of a property – which provides a unique identifier for each property, is based on the subdivision plans filed in the land title office. Those plans may have been filed a century ago. Property owners are entitled to rely on them, without having to produce to the court a possibly deceased land surveyor who certified them decades previously. Mr Weber has relied on them.

I find he is entitled to do so. [ 10 ] The defendants further argue that this Court should not be satisfied that Mr Weber located the actual property boundaries, because he did not hire a professional surveyor to provide an opinion that the survey pins found by Mr Weber are in fact the survey pins marking the property line. I am not persuaded by that argument.

I am satisfied that Mr Weber could and did measure the distance between the property pins from one side of his property to the other and that he found the survey pins that were put into place to make the property boundaries between his lot and Mr Hafstein’s lot. One does not have to be an expert to operate a measuring tape, nor to count – nor to recognise a survey pin. The survey pin says right on it what it is. [ 11 ] The property line as marked by Mr Weber clearly shows that the area excavated by Mr Hafstein encroaches on the Weber property by 5.5 feet in some places, to over 10 feet in others.

I find the defendants clearly trespassed onto the Weber property. DID THE DEFENDANTS KNOWINGLY TRESPASS ONTO THE WEBERS’ PROPERTY? [ 12 ] Mr Hafstein does not deny that he rented an excavator and did all the excavating in the area in question. Mr Burnstein, a neighbour who lives in the Nurses House, saw him do it. Mr Burnstein testified that before Mr Hafstein did the excavation, there was

about a foot of flat ground at the rear of the Hafstein house and then the land sloped upward to the Weber property. At the end of the excavation, the photos make it clear that Mr Hafstein had moved enough earth to create a terrace large enough for a swimming pool to sit flat, in an area that previously had been a slope with a rise of approximately five vertical feet.

The swimming pool is sitting approximately two feet into the Weber property. [ 13 ] Mr Weber testified that before he put up the black fence from his garage wall to the shed, he had regularly entered onto the area in question to mow the lawn there and do weed control. After the fence was put up, he testified that he went onto the area about twice a month, during the growing season, to do weed control.

Mr Hafstein admitted that he had seen Mr Weber mow the area with a lawn mower before the black fence was erected, but testified that after the fence was built, he had not seen Mr Weber do weed control “with his own eyes”. Since Mr Hafstein could not have used anyone else’s eyes to see, I find Mr Hafstein’s answer to be evasive. I infer that Mr Hafstein was aware that Mr Weber had done weed control on the south side of the black fence. [ 14 ] Mr Hafstein testified that in the past, he had cut a tree down in the area of the black fence, at Mr Weber’s suggestion.

Mr Weber said he gave Mr Hafstein permission to remove the tree. The black fence is located approximately 10 feet inside the Webers’ property. The shed is located approximately seven feet inside the Webers’ property. Mr Hafstein suggested that his removal of the tree is consistent with his stated belief that the area adjacent to the black fence was not the Webers’ property, but rather, was his own property.

However, Mr Hafstein also admitted that he threw all the tree debris behind Mr Weber’s shed which he acknowledges sits on the Weber property. [ 15 ] I find Mr Hafstein’s behaviour is not consistent with a belief on his part that the tree was growing on his own property, because if he thought so, he would have had no justification whatsoever for throwing the resultant debris behind the shed he admits he knew belonged to the Webers. Further, that shed was located closer to Mr Hafstein’s property than the black fence.

I find Mr Hafstein knew the tree he cut down was on the Webers’ property and therefore he knew the property he excavated adjacent to the black fence was the Webers’ property. [ 16 ] Mr Hafstein testified that he believed the property line was more or less in line with the concrete foundation wall built on Mr Weber’s property, upon which Mr Weber planned to build a shop or garage in the future. That foundation is in fact 5.5 feet into Mr Weber’s property, as one would expect since building bylaws typically require a set back from the property line for the placement of buildings.

I am therefore troubled by Mr Hafstein’s expressed belief that the foundation was the property line, since that is not in accord with common knowledge. [ 17 ] However, the photographs make clear that the black fence erected by Mr Weber is approximately five feet farther into the Webers’ property than the edge of his concrete garage foundation.

The photographs clearly show that the excavation performed by Mr Hafstein extends along the entirety of the Weber property, running in a zigzag fashion adjacent to each structure sitting on the Weber property – not in a straight line as one would expect property lines should go. Mr Hafstein did not suggest that he believed the property line was anything other than a straight line – in fact, he acknowledged the property line was straight.

Thus, even if Mr Hafstein believed that the property line was in line with the concrete foundation, I find he could not have believed that the extra five-foot depth to the black fence, and then the move back out to the area adjacent to the shed, could possibly have been on his side of any property line. Such a belief would be completely illogical. [ 18 ] It is noteworthy that the concrete retaining wall running along the Nurses-House side of the Hafstein property ends a few inches beyond where the pin marking the dividing line between the Weber property and the Hafstein property was located by Mr Weber.

The retaining wall changes at that point into a rock retaining wall that runs along the Weber property. It is an easily visible indicator of the point at which the property line between the Hafstein and Weber properties is located. [ 19 ] The end of the Hafstein concrete retaining wall (and the beginning of the Weber rock retaining wall) is located approximately 5.5 feet to the southeast of the concrete garage foundation belonging to the Webers.

Thus, if the change in retaining-wall style is an easily visible indicator of the location of the property line, it is also obvious that the concrete foundation is located inside the Webers’ property by approximately 5.5 feet. [ 20 ] Mr Weber testified about a conversation he had with Mr Hafstein and his spouse Ms Machon just before Mr. Weber went away on vacation. He discovered Mr Hafstein and Ms Machon at the front of his property, examining his rock retaining wall. Ms Machon expressed her admiration for it and told Mr Weber that she was putting something similar in her yard.

Mr Weber agreed to go and see it after he came back from vacation. That conversation occurred only a day or two before Mr Hafstein began excavating. [ 21 ] I find that the location of the change in the retaining walls was a clear indicator of the location of the property line. I am satisfied by Mr Weber’s evidence that the defendants had taken particular note of the rock retaining wall and knew it was on Mr Weber’s property. I find the defendants knew, or ought to have known, that the change in retaining walls marked the property line.

At the very least, it should have put the defendants on notice that they should make further inquiries before excavating anywhere near that property line, much less beyond it. [ 22 ] The defendants did not make any inquiries. They did not tell the Webers they were planning to excavate near (or on) their property. They did not ask the Webers if they could excavate on or near their property.

Instead, the defendants chose to excavate the Weber property when they knew Mr and Mrs Weber were away on vacation. [ 23 ] I also take note that the defendants placed fence posts into the ground on the northwest side of their property leading right up to the Webers’ shed and attached chicken wire fencing material to the Webers’ shed. There is no dispute that the defendants knew the shed was on the Webers’ property.

The inference is inescapable that the defendants trespassed onto the Webers’ property (by putting in fence posts and attaching the fence to the shed) knowingly and deliberately. [ 24 ] That behaviour is entirely consistent with Mr Hafstein’s evidence about using the land between his home and the various buildings, fences and foundations on the Weber property as if it were all his possession.

I find the defendants made use of their neighbours’ property as they saw fit – not because they believed they owned it, nor because they were mistaken or uncertain about who owned it, but because they felt entitled to take and use whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted. The defendants’ sense of

entitlement is entirely unfounded in law and does not constitute a defence to the claim. [ 25 ] I find that the defendants deliberately trespassed onto the Weber property and excavated a large portion of it, knowing it belonged to the Webers. Although Mr Hafstein operated the excavator, I find that Ms Machon was a party to the trespass. She told Mr Weber that she was putting a retaining wall on her property similar to that on Mr Weber’s property – and that is what appears to have been placed on the Webers’ property, close to the Webers’ shed.

Although Ms Machon did not testify, Mr Hafstein indicated that the plants placed on top of the rock retaining wall adjacent to the Webers’ shed were Ms Machon’s plants. I find that Ms Machon and Mr Hafstein were both engaged in the project to excavate and make use of the Webers’ property. That excavation was done to improve the defendants’ enjoyment of their home. The defendants Mr Hafstein and Ms Machon are therefore liable for the trespass and any resulting damage.

DID MR HAFSTEIN CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE WEBERS’ PROPERTY? [ 26 ] Mr Hafstein excavated a large portion of the Webers’ property in order to make a terrace on his own property large enough to make a flat spot for a swimming pool and to flatten the slope of other areas of his property. It is clear from the photographs that the swimming pool itself encroached substantially on the Weber property. The excavation has made the slope of the Weber property significantly more extreme.

Mr Weber is concerned that the soil is now disturbed and the slope is so extreme that the support for his adjacent property has been removed and his property and structures on it are in danger of erosion. [ 27 ] He points to the erosion undermining his garden shed as evidence of what is to come. Mr Hafstein disagrees. He says the ground under the garden shed was eroding before he removed the surrounding soil.

Neither party provided the court with expert testimony with respect to erosion or soil remediation. [ 28 ] Photos of the area downhill and to the left of the garden shed show a deep excavation with an assortment of large rocks placed along the base of the excavated area, with some potted plants resting on top, placed against the slope adjacent to the shed. The excavation is located approximately two to three feet from the shed – which is located more than seven feet onto the Weber property. In other words, the entire excavation, rocks and potted plants are located on the Weber property.

The excavation continues southeast, beyond the shed area to the area adjacent to the Webers’ black fence; the swimming pool is sitting on the resultant flat spot. Approximately two feet of the pool is located on the Weber property. [ 29 ] Mr Hafstein testified that he excavated only three to six inches of the soil, simply to remove weeds. He testified the only difference between before and after is that there is no grass. I find Mr Hafstein’s evidence in this regard is contrary to the photographic evidence.

The photographs before the excavation occurred clearly show a gentle slope running at a uniform grade from the Webers’ property, down to the area immediately behind the defendants’ home; after the excavation, there is a sharp cut of the slope into a bank and a resulting large flat terrace – large enough to house an above-ground pool. The legal maxim “ res ipsa loquitur ” could not be more applicable. [ 30 ] I find the slope is clearly eroding from under the shed.

The rocks placed there by the defendants appear to be an amateur attempt to forestall that erosion, which does not appear to be working, given the flow of soil and gravel down over those rocks which is visible in the photographs of the area. I note those rocks, the potted plants and the excavation they rest on, are all on the Weber property.

I am satisfied that the excavation by the defendants has caused, or at least exacerbated, the erosion under the garden shed, which I accept is located 7.5 feet into the Weber property. [ 31 ] The excavation continues most of the way down the area between the Weber and Hafstein homes, taking out the support for the black fence within a few feet of the fence, and taking the soil away from the (hitherto) partly buried garage foundation, as well as the fence line below that. [ 32 ] I find that the defendants caused substantial damage to the Weber property by excavating a large portion of it away.

I am satisfied that unless the slope is properly remediated, it will continue to erode, which will cause further damage to the Weber property and the structures located upon it. QUANTUM OF DAMAGES FOR REMEDIATION [ 33 ] I have considered the evidence put forward by Mr Weber and Mr Hafstein regarding the work required to remediate the damage.

The claimants provided three quotations for work required to remediate their property. [ 34 ] Each of the quotations involves: the construction of a temporary ramp over the existing retaining wall on the Weber property; supply and installation of a lock-block retaining wall along the property line; required fill; removal and replacement of the fence; replacement of irrigation lines; and sod. Each quote makes an allowance for engineering fees if the retaining wall has to be higher than four feet. The quotes range from $32,970 to $34,440 including taxes.

Mr Weber testified that he obtained another quote for a concrete retaining wall, but in his view the cost was exorbitant. A much less expensive alternative was the lock-block retaining wall. [ 35 ] The quotes obtained all contemplated that the remedial work would be completed from the Weber side of the property line, because otherwise, the remediation would require the cooperation of the defendant.

The Webers point out that these quotes were provided in August 2021 and February 2022 and the actual cost of remediation may have increased since then. [ 36 ] Mr Hafstein argues that the work described in the quotes obtained by the Webers is unnecessary and that a simple backfilling of the excavated area using compacted aggregate (gravel) fill will be sufficient to remediate the slope and prevent further erosion. Mr Hafstein did not provide any expert evidence to support that contention.

He provided a quote to perform that work for $2,495.59, dated June 7, 2022, just a few days before the trial of this matter commenced. [ 37 ] Secondly, he argues that the quotes provided by the Webers all contemplate doing the remedial work from the Webers’ side of the property line, which is much more expensive than doing the remedial work from the Hafstein side. He argues that the work could be completed much less expensively if access to the area is through the Hafstein property. He says that he is willing to provide access for

the work to be performed. [38] A similar proposal was suggested to the court in Brear v. Deane, (BC SC), 1991CanLII 1301 (BCSC). In thatcase, Madam Justice Boyd had the following to say about such a proposal at p. 6: In my view, that proposal is completely untenable. It puts the satisfaction of this judgment beyond the plaintiffs’ control and willprobably force the plaintiffs to incur future costs in assessing the adequacy of the remedial work performed by the defendants. Inaddition, such a proposal opens the possibility of ongoing disputes between two obviously feuding neighbours.

While it is more expensive, the only dependable choice here is to award the plaintiffs sufficient damages to carry out the necessaryremedial work within the boundaries of their own property, with no reliance upon the defendants’ future good-will or the adequacy oftheir labour. [39] While I accept that doing the remedial work from the Hafstein property would likely be easier and therefore less costly, I find Icannot rely on Mr Hafstein’s assurances with respect to providing access for several reasons. [40] Firstly, since this litigation began, Mr Hafstein placed his home on the market for sale.

Although it was not actively listed forsale at the time of trial, Mr Hafstein confirmed he intends to list it again. There is no way to be sure that Mr Hafstein would even ownthe property when the remediation work takes place. His personal assurances to the court or the Webers would not be binding on anysubsequent owner of his property. [41] Secondly, I am unable to conceive of any order this Court has jurisdiction to make that could ensure that Mr Hafstein (or anysubsequent owner of his property) would allow access and cooperate with the remediation process.

The Provincial Court has nojurisdiction to make orders that bind real property. [42] Thirdly, I am not satisfied that Mr Hafstein and Ms Machon would in fact cooperate with the remediation process and provide theaccess he has promised when the time comes. Mr Hafstein has behaved in an extraordinarily highhanded manner throughout the historyof this matter. He actively interfered with Mr Weber’s efforts to mark the property line by vandalizing his stakes, string and wire andcarried on to vandalize the Webers’ fence with a crowbar. Ms Machon threw the posts at the Webers’ house.

Past behaviour is the bestpredictor of future behaviour. I find Mr Hafstein and Ms Machon cannot be trusted to behave properly. [43] I find the only dependable choice is for the remedial work to be done from the Webers’ property. Claimants are entitled tospecial damages for the remediation in the amount of $33,200. QUANTUM OF DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS [44] The tort of trespass occurs when the offender occupies another’s land without permission: see Willow Beach Developments Ltd.v. Silverstone, 2017 BCSC 2562, at para. 26.

The continuation of a trespass constitutes a fresh trespass and is actionable assuch: see Johnson v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1981), (BC SC), 123 D.L.R. (3d) 340 at 347, 27B.C.L.R. 50 (S.C.). [45] In Willow Beach, the court notes the following authorities regarding damages for trespass: Henderson v. Bakken, 2010 BCSC559, at para. 54, which in turn cites Webb v. Attewell, (BC CA), [1994] 4 W.W.R. 404 (B.C.C.A.) for its discussion ofdamages for trespass. In the latter case, Southin J.A. relied on Halsbury’s, 4th ed., vol. 45, 1403, which reads as follows: [20] . . . 1403. Damages.

In an action of trespass, if the plaintiff proves the trespass he is entitled to recover nominal damages, even if he has notsuffered any actual loss. If the trespass has caused the plaintiff actual damage, he is entitled to receive such an amount as willcompensate him for his loss. Where the defendant has made use of the plaintiff's land, the plaintiff is entitled to receive by way ofdamages such a sum as should reasonably be paid for that use.

Where there is an oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional trespass by agovernment official or where the defendant cynically disregards the rights of the plaintiff in the land with the object of making a gain byhis unlawful conduct, exemplary damages may be awarded. If the trespass is accompanied by aggravating circumstances which do notallow an award of exemplary damages, the general damages may be increased. . . . [46] The court in Willow Beach added at para 37: [37] . . .

Without delving too deeply into a discussion of exemplary damages, I would say that it is appropriate to increase the award ofgeneral damages to account for the extent to which the trespassing conduct was intentional or persistent. . . . [47] In addition to the excavation, I find the defendants had also trespassed onto the Weber property by making a fence, attachingchicken wire to the fence posts and securing the chicken wire by nailing it into Mr Weber’s shed, as the photographs produced at trialclearly show. Mr Hafstein admitted he knew the shed belonged to the Webers and was sitting on the Weber property.

Nevertheless, Ifind the defendants chose to appropriate it and the seven feet of land adjacent to it, for their own use – in this case, to contain their familydogs. [48] I find Mr Hafstein excavated the soil from the Weber property in order to improve his own property, including to create a flatterrace for a swimming pool, among other things.

In other words, he took the Weber soil in order to enhance his own property, which hehas since put up for sale. [49] The evidence in this case was clear that in addition to trespassing on the Weber property and excavating it away, Mr Hafsteincontinued to trespass after Mr Weber discovered the unlawful excavation and complained. Specifically, Mr Hafstein broke the string Mr

Weber placed on poles (located three inches inside the Weber property) to demarcate the property line. Mr Hafstein testified that the strings “just broke” when he pulled on them because he was trying to retrieve his dogs who had escaped. However, Mr Weber testified that the strings were cut in six different places. I find Mr Hafstein deliberately broke the string in multiple places. [ 50 ] After Mr Weber discovered the strings had been cut, he replaced the string with a wire, strung at five feet in height.

He testified that Mr Hafstein came out of his home and told him he would cut the wire, claiming it was a hazard for his dogs. Mr Weber testified that he caught Mr Hafstein on his video surveillance coming outside of his house and cutting the wire the following night. [ 51 ] I accept Mr Weber’s evidence that he heard Ms Machon yelling and heard something strike his house. He discovered that she or someone from the Hafstein property pulled out the stakes marking the property line that Mr Weber had pounded into the ground and threw them at Mr Weber’s house and onto his property.

I infer that Ms Machon yelled, pulled out the stakes and threw them at the Webers’ home. I accept Mr Weber’s evidence that Mr Hafstein used a wrecking bar to smash into boards on the Weber black fence after Mr Weber asked Ms Machon to remove the chicken wire fence and her plants from his property and shed. [ 52 ] This behaviour by Mr Hafstein and Ms Machon is beyond unrepentant – it is outrageous. I find the defendants’ trespasses on the Weber property were intentional, persistent and cynical – and done for personal gain.

The defendants’ behaviour certainly justifies an award of exemplary damages, or an increase in general damages for trespass. [ 53 ] I find the claimants are entitled to $2,000 in damages for the defendants’ repeated, persistent and belligerent trespasses onto the Webers’ property. However, the monetary jurisdiction of this Court is limited to $35,000, so any portion of the damages awarded over that amount must be waived.

Accordingly, the remaining amount of the award payable by the defendants to the claimants in damages for trespass is $1,800, in addition to the specific damages for remediation of the Webers’ property in the amount of $33,200. PENALTIES [ 54 ] Rule 20(5) of the Small Claims Rules provides that: Rule 20 – Fees and Expenses . . . A judge may order a penalty

(5) A judge may order a party to pay the other party up to 10% of the amount claimed or the value of the claim or counterclaim if the party made a claim, counterclaim or reply and proceeded through trial with no reasonable basis for success. [ 55 ] It may also be that offers to settle were made by one party or the other under Rule 10.1 of the Small Claims Rules .

If any such offers were made under Rule 10.1(1) and rejected, then depending on the outcome of the trial, a penalty may be applicable under Rule 10.1(7). [ 56 ] Should either party wish to seek the imposition of a penalty, I invite the parties to make that application within 30 days from today’s date and the Judicial Case Manager will set a date for submissions in that regard. PAYMENT ORDER [ 57 ] The defendant must pay $35,000 to the claimants plus prejudgment interest from June 11 2021, and reasonable costs to be assessed by the Registrar, plus penalties to be assessed, if any.

The defendant has leave to apply within 30 days of this decision for a hearing to be set under Rule 11 regarding the payment of this judgment. Should any penalty be ordered, any such amount will be in addition to the $35,000 ordered herein. _______________________________ The Honourable Judge S.K. Keyes Provincial Court of British Columbia