Saanich v. Visser Van Ijzendoorn Date:, 2017 BCPC 160

Citation: Saanich v. Visser Van Ijzendoorn Date: 20170525 2017 BCPC 160 File No: M02236, M02239, M02240, M02241, M02242, M02243, M02244, M02245, M02246, M02247 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF SAANICH v. JAN HENDRIK VISSER VAN IJZENDOORN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL JUSTICE B. L. EDWARDS Counsel for the Crown: Geofrey D. Simair

Appearing on his own behalf: Jan Visser Van Ijzendoorn Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 18, 19, 2017 Date of Judgment: May 25, 2017 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On the morning of Saturday, March 16, 2016, concerned citizens in the Arbutus Cove area of Saanich, British Columbia, heard chainsaws operating and trees being felled and rushed to investigate. The confrontation that ensued between the tree-cutters, the property owner and the citizens who attempted to halt the cutting, led to police being called and, later, an investigation by the Corporation of the District of Saanich (the “District”).

The District, ultimately, issued 12 municipal tickets to Mr. Jan Visser Van Ijzendoorn (“Mr. Visser”) for cutting down protected trees contrary to a local bylaw. [ 2 ] Mr. Visser acknowledged throughout the proceedings that he had authorized the cutting of trees on his property located at 2218 Arbutus Rd., Saanich, BC (the “Property”) but insisted that he had no choice but to do so, that a trial was unnecessary and that the District just needed to sit down with him and work things out. [ 3 ] I explained to Mr.

Visser that he had been charged on the municipal tickets before me and that the District was entitled to proceed. I explained the trial process and told him that the District must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was entitled to argue any defence that he believed he had to the charges. Mr. Visser entered a not guilty plea and the trial began. BACKGROUND AND FACTS [ 4 ] Throughout late December 2015 and January 2016, Mr.

Visser repeatedly contacted staff at the District regarding various concerns and expressed his desire to have the District cut or reduce the trees on the Property. [ 5 ] On January 28, 2016, Daniel Gallagher, Arboricultural Inspector, telephoned Mr. Visser in response to one of those messages and a letter that had been provided to the District by Mr. Visser from an arborist. [ 6 ] The letter that Mr. Visser provided the District was dated January 13, 2015, and was written on letterhead from Garden City Tree and Landscape. The entire letter, addressed to Mr.

Visser reads: Arborist report for 2218 Arbutus Rd Tree Location : Group of 8 previously topped Alders on the bank at the back of the property. Species: Alder Recommendation: Re-top the trees at the previous topping points, assess for further defects and advise if any further action is to be taken. Reduce or remove long extending limbs on alders at beach. Arborist Assessment: The trees have been previously topped and show signs of decay and the potential for failure at the old topping wounds. Several have cavities visible from the ground and all have poor unions at the new tops.

The Alders along the beach have developed long extending limbs toward the water and are beginning to lean and pull away from the bank. Kind regards, ISA certified arborist (name, phone number and certification number redacted) [ 7 ] Mr. Gallagher advised Mr. Visser that the arborist’s report was not sufficiently detailed and if Mr.

Visser wished to obtain a permit to cut trees on the Property, he would need to provide to the District a detailed arborist report regarding any defects in the targeted trees as the Property was inside the Environmental Development Permit Area (the “ EDPA ”) of the District’s Official Community Plan. [ 8 ] Mr. Visser continued to telephone and speak to, or leave messages for, Mr. Gallagher regarding the trees. On February 18, 2016, Mr. Gallagher and three other staff members from the District made a site visit to view the Property and to advise Mr.

Visser further regarding the information that the District would need in order to issue a permit to alter the trees. Mr. Gallagher and his colleagues saw nothing that they believed would warrant tree removal. [ 9 ] Mr. Gallagher testified that he had many conversations with Mr. Visser about the latter’s concerns regarding the Property and Mr. Visser’s view that there were unstable trees that could fall leading to erosion of the slope. [ 10 ] After the site visit, Mr. Gallagher wrote to Mr.

Visser on March 4, 2016, and cautioned him that the trees were protected as the Property was in the EDPA and in a “steep slope” area as identified in

Schedule “A” to the District’s Tree Protection Bylaw, No. 9272 (“the Tree Protection Bylaw” ) and if he wished to cut trees in that area, he would need to provide a detailed report from an arborist justifying the removal. Mr. Gallagher suggested that if Mr. Visser was concerned about slope stability that he might want to secure a geotechnical report, perhaps after speaking with his neighbours. [ 11 ] Mr. Visser continued to email and telephone the District about the issue but he did not provide the detailed report required. [ 12 ] Sherry Bird testified that on the morning of March 26, 2016, she was drinking her coffee when she heard what she believed to

be the sound of chainsaws; she thought the sound was coming from the beach. She knew that trees had been removed in the area in January and she was concerned so she went outside and could see trees falling in the area. [ 13 ] Ms. Bird went to her car and drove a short distance to Arbutus Cove Lane where there was beach access from a staircase. She ran down to the beach where she could see fallen trees and where she could view the property from which trees were still being felled. Ms. Bird ran back up the staircase and confronted two tree-cutters on the Property asking if they had a permit to cut the trees.

She testified that one of the tree-cutters told her that he did. She challenged him as she believed it was not possible to obtain a permit to cut on that slope and repeatedly asked him to stop cutting. Ms. Bird asked to speak to the owner and the tree-cutters said that he was not available. [ 14 ] Ms. Bird acknowledged that there was a heated exchange between her and one of the tree-cutters as well as two other concerned citizens who had also rushed up the slope from the beach below and who also asked the tree-cutters to cease cutting the trees.

At one point, one of the tree-cutters threatened that he would drop the tree he was cutting on Ms. Bird’s head if she did not leave. [ 15 ] Ms. Bird testified that it was not until about twenty minutes into the exchange that Mr. Visser appeared from the direction of the house on the Property. Ms. Bird asked him if he was the owner of the Property and he acknowledged that he was. [ 16 ] When asked by Ms. Bird if he had a permit to cut the trees he replied “Of course, I have a permit.” Ms. Bird and the other two individuals who had ascended from the beach challenged Mr.

Visser on this statement and repeated their request that he stop the cutting. The argument escalated, Mr. Visser asked her to leave the property and she did. [ 17 ] Ms. Bird had a camera with her on the day in question and photographed the felled trees on the Property and on the beach below as well as the two tree-cutters in the process of cutting the trees; a man who identified himself as the Property owner standing near one of the tree-cutters; and the stumps of the felled trees. Ms.

Bird returned to the beach area below the Property later in the day and took more photographs from the beach and from the staircase including photographs of the stumps of the felled trees on the Property and the tree- tops and other debris that had fallen onto the beach. [ 18 ] Ms. Bird testified that when she returned to her home, she researched the area on the District’s website which provides a map with a satellite view of the area. She satisfied herself that the cut trees were on the Property and possibly on the adjacent lot at 2220 Arbutus Road. [ 19 ] Ms.

Bird added that she was concerned about the tree cutting because she has lived in the area for 26 years; she has been through the District’s permitting process; she knew that the trees were in the EDPA ; and she knew that there were “a lot of restrictions” on cutting. She was alarmed at the tree-cutting because she believed it was not permitted and because there were people and dogs walking on the beach below the Property as the tree tops and debris were falling onto the beach. [ 20 ] Ms. Bird did not resile from her testimony during Mr.

Visser’s cross-examination of her. [ 21 ] Daniel Gallagher, an Arboricultural Inspector for the District testified. I was satisfied that Mr. Gallagher is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture and is qualified to provide expert testimony in the identification of tree species, assessing tree health, pruning and removal of trees and measurements of tree species. [ 22 ] On Saturday, March 26, 2016, Mr. Gallagher was not at work as the District does not conduct by-law enforcement with respect to tree-cutting on weekends. On the first work day following the weekend, Mr.

Gallagher was referred a complaint that had been emailed to the District email with photos attached, regarding tree cutting at the Property. [ 23 ] On March 29, 2016, Mr. Gallagher attended to the Property and knocked on the door of the residence. No one answered so Mr. Gallagher and another employee who had accompanied him went to the beach and viewed the Property from there. Mr. Gallagher observed trees that had fallen onto the beach and the bank of the Property.

He described the rear of the Property as a “steep slope” and explained that trees in steep slope areas of the District are protected in a local bylaw, in part, for bank stability. [ 24 ] Mr. Gallagher added that he took photos of the site and then returned topside where he observed that, at the rear of the Property, virtually all of the trees had been “greatly reduced in size” such that there was now a clear view of the ocean from the Property. [ 25 ] Mr. Gallagher testified that he located Mr. Visser at the rear of the Property and explained that he was investigating tree-cutting on the Property. Mr.

Visser refused to identify the tree-cutters when asked. Mr. Gallagher took more photos and made notes of his observations. He testified that the quality of the tree-cutting was poor and appeared to have been hastily done. He noted that the debris from the felled trees was left in a haphazard manner on the bank of the Property and the beach below. [ 26 ] On April 14, 2016, Mr. Gallagher and another District employee, Mike McLelland, Arborist Inspector, returned to the Property and Mr.

McLelland measured the diameter of the cut trees at breast height, i.e. approximately 1.4 metres from the natural gradient of the ground (the “DBH”). Each tree was tagged with a numbered aluminum tag nailed to the stump. Mr. Gallagher recorded the tag number, species of the tree and the DBH in a Tree Cutting Activity Report and then advised Mr. Visser that the investigation was ongoing and that he would hear back from the District. [ 27 ] When he returned to his office, Mr.

Gallagher took the lay of the land from the photos he had taken at the Property and he approximated the location of each of the inventoried trees in relation to a rocky path which traversed the Property as observable on the District’s GIS mapping system (the “GIS map”) and layered the grid for the District’s “steep slope” protected area over the GIS map, then affixed a digital “sticky note” on the map for each tree tag. Mr. Gallagher identified on the GIS map, the overlay of the EDPA that showed the Property as inside the EDPA. [ 28 ] Mr.

Gallagher testified that based on the information that he had, he prepared and signed a separate municipal ticket for violation of

Section 7 of the Tree Protection Bylaw for each tree that he had identified and tagged in the steep slope area of the Property as follows:

• Municipal Ticket – M02236 - Tag 0801 – multi-stem Big Leaf Maple • Municipal Ticket – M02237 - Tag 0802 – 47 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02238 - Tag 0803 – 45 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02239 - Tag 0804 – 59 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02240 - Tag 0805- 52 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02241 - Tag 0806 – 47 cm and 48 cm co-dominant alder (two stems of roughly equal size) • Municipal Ticket – M02242 - Tag 0807 – 40 cm DBH alder at its cut-height (cut below the height used for DBH) • Municipal Ticket – M02243 - Tag 0808 - 45 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02244 - Tag 0809 – 69 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02245 - Tag 0810 – 62 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02246 - Tag 0811 – 63 cm DBH alder • Municipal Ticket – M02247 - Tag 0812 - 74 cm DBH alder [ 29 ] Mr.

Gallagher testified that all trees in the District are protected after they reach a certain DBH. Alders are protected at a DBH of 60 cm no matter where they occur but alders in a “steep slope” area are protected once they achieve a DBH of 10 cm or if they are in the EDPA. [ 30 ] On April 18, 2016, Mr. Gallagher served Mr. Visser with twelve municipal tickets (M02236 - M02247). Tickets M02237 and M02238 were withdrawn by the District on February 24, 2017. [ 31 ] Under cross-examination, Mr. Gallagher acknowledged that at the site visit, Mr.

Visser had expressed concern regarding a slide that had occurred two properties over from his and worried about the slope stability on the Property. [ 32 ] Michael McLelland testified that he had accompanied Mr. Gallagher on the site visit along with two other District staff. He testified that the purpose of the visit was to hear Mr. Visser’s concerns and to explain the protocol for obtaining a permit to cut in the protected area. Mr. McLelland had not been involved in previous discussions with Mr. Visser but identified Mr.

Visser, in the courtroom, as the property owner with whom he met during the site visit. [ 33 ] Mr. McLelland recalled Mr. Visser expressing concern about slope stability at the Property and pointing out cracking in a staircase near the Property as evidence of instability. Mr. McLelland recalled that the District staff told Mr. Visser that there was no apparent bank stability issue and that if he was concerned about that he would need to provide a geotechnical report to the District. Mr.

McLelland noted that the staircase was very old and appeared to be stone and the mortar was separating from the rock in places. [ 34 ] McLelland testified that Mr. Visser expressed concern regarding the cost of a geotechnical report and said that he wanted to cut trees to ensure the bank stability but did not identify any particular trees that he wanted to cut. Mr. McLelland recalls Mr. Visser expressing an interest in planting holly in the area and Mr.

McLelland advising him that holly was an invasive species that would need to be specially sanctioned to be in the EDPA and that staff could not support the proposal. [ 35 ] Mr. Visser testified on his own behalf. He is an 84-year old, retired lawyer.

He told me that “the facts are known” but felt that he was justified in having the trees cut to prevent his property “from further sliding into Arbutus Cove.” He stated that he “gave Saanich sufficient notice that they needed to cooperate with me” and “if they wouldn’t do it, I would.” He added that he felt it was his duty to protect his property from further damage and that by cutting the trees; he might have stopped the slope sliding for 20 to 30 years. [ 36 ] Mr. Visser expressed frustration that he had made many phone calls to the District that were not answered.

He acknowledged knowing that he needed to provide Saanich with a more detailed report from an arborist if he wanted a permit to cut the trees. He testified that he contacted many arborists and all had refused to cut the trees because they knew of his conflict with the District and they all do work for the District, but one of the arborists told him that he knew “two guys who will do it (cut the trees) and charge you $3,000.00.” [ 37 ] Mr. Visser testified that he did not know the names of these two “guys” and that they just appeared on his property one day and “made a plan” to cut the trees.

They arranged to return on Saturday, March 26, 2016, at 8 a.m. Mr. Visser was candid that this time had been selected because “Saanich would be at rest.” [ 38 ] He stated that the two tree-cutters were very competent and very knowledgeable but he would not say why he believed this to be the case. He said that the tree-cutters were working under “enormous pressure” once Ms. Bird arrived on the scene and began “scolding” them. Mr.

Visser testified that he had been keeping watch on the tree-cutting from the staircase on the Property as he did not want to be sued for millions of dollars if a tree landed on someone’s head. He said that there was no one on the beach below the Property when the trees were felled. [ 39 ] Mr. Visser stated that once the police were called (it was never made clear to me who called the police), the tree-cutters “worked at double speed and let everything fall where it would fall” then collected payment from him (by cash and cheque) and quickly departed before the police arrived. [ 40 ] Mr.

Visser testified that there had been a storm prior to the day in question and a slide had occurred two properties over from his

causing a portion of the bank and a deck from the home to slide onto the beach. He was convinced that the trees on his property would have their roots exposed and then fall and take the bank with them. [ 41 ] Mr. Visser testified that he consulted an engineer and asked about having a geotechnical report prepared as to the slope stability on the Property as the District had suggested but on learning that the report would cost him $5,000.00, he decided not to have the report prepared. [ 42 ] Mr. Visser was adamant that the District was “negligent” and “delinquent” in not addressing the situation.

He repeated that he had told the District that if they would not take care of the situation and reduce the trees on the Property, that he would do it. [ 43 ] When asked by counsel for the District about the identity of the tree-cutters, Mr. Visser testified that he promised the two tree- cutters that he would never tell anyone their names. When directed by the court to answer the questions put to him by counsel for the District, he first refused, and then said he did not know their names. [ 44 ] Mr. Visser acknowledged that he was aware that he needed a permit to cut the trees. He denied telling Ms.

Bird that he had a permit but acknowledged that he told the police officer who arrived on the scene that he had a permit to cut the trees on the Property (he added that he subsequently “came clean” with the police officer and acknowledged that he did not have a permit). He said he had, initially, been confused. [ 45 ] Mr. Visser was extremely evasive about why he had repeatedly stated that he had a permit when, in fact, he did not. At times, he testified that the “report” that he had received from the Garden City Tree and Landscape arborist in January 2015 was a “permit”.

He stated that it was only a matter of “language” as to whether he had a “permit” or a report. When pressed, he acknowledged that he knew that he needed a permit and he was familiar with the permitting process having applied for and received a permit from the District the year prior. [ 46 ] Mr. Visser acknowledged that he was aware that the District required a detailed arborist report before it would issue a permit to cut trees on the Property and that he did not have such a permit.

He also acknowledged that he hired the two tree-cutters knowing that he did not have a permit and that the District did not approve of the tree-cutting. Mr. Visser repeatedly stated that “any sane person could see what was required” and that he did not think that it was warranted to pay more money for a detailed arborist report or a geotechnical report. [ 47 ] Mr. Simair, for the District, submitted that Mr. Visser had not taken issue with the facts and had repeatedly acknowledged authorizing the tree-cutters to cut or reduce the trees on the Property. Mr.

Visser did not challenge the evidence regarding the species of each tree that was cut and tagged, nor did he challenge the evidence that the trees were in a steep slope area and all (with the possible exception of the Big Leaf Maple) were in the EDPA . [ 48 ] Mr. Simair notes that

Section 7 of the Tree Protection Bylaw provides that No person shall alter, cut, damage or remove any protected tree or cause, suffer or permit any such tree to be altered, cut, damaged or removed, except where permitted by and in accordance with the bylaws. [ 49 ] The District submits that the evidence establishes that by hiring the two men to cut or reduce the trees on the Property, Mr. Visser caused those trees to be cut or altered (within the meaning of the bylaw) knowing that he required a permit to do so and knowing that he did not have such a permit. [ 50 ] The District further submits that although Mr.

Visser acknowledges that the cut trees were on his property, it would not have mattered if they were not as the trees were still protected under the bylaw. The District submits that each of the 10 trees that were tagged and referenced on the municipal tickets were “protected” within the meaning of that term as set out in

Section 2 of the Tree Protection Bylaw for multiple reasons. Specifically, • Tag 801 – a big leaf Maple with a DBH greater than 30 cm was protected under paragraph (

b) of the definition of “protected tree” whether or not in the EDPA ; • Tags 0804-0808 – alders with a DBH less than 60 cm but greater than 10 cm were protected because they were in the EDPA and would have required a special permit as they were in a “steep slope” area as provided for in

Section 24 of the bylaw and Map 5; and • Tags 0809-0812 – alders with a DBH greater than 60 cm were protected under paragraph (

c) due to their size and were further protected under paragraph (

e) as they were in the EDPA. [ 51 ] Mr.

Simair referred to the evidence of the witnesses, the photos entered as exhibits and the District’s GIS map and overlay as evidence that the Property is inside the EDPA and that the bank of the Property is in a “steep slope” area although he submits nothing turns on the “steep slope” area as the trees are otherwise “protected” within the meaning of the Tree Protection Bylaw. [ 52 ] For all the above reasons, the District submits that it has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each of the Municipal Tickets. [ 53 ] The District further submits that the only defence that might have been available to Mr.

Visser is one of due diligence. Mr. Simair submits that even if Mr. Visser felt that there was a state of urgency necessitating the cutting of the trees, the Tree Protection Bylaw provides a process for such situations. That process requires the owner to notify the District of the cutting on the next business day and leave the tree in place for inspection by the District to assess whether the tree posed an actual imminent danger. Mr. Visser did not follow this process. Instead, the District only became aware of the tree-cutting when it received a complaint from a member of the public after the event. [ 54 ] Mr.

Simair submits that even if Mr. Visser is to be believed, and he ought not to be due to evidence of his misleading Ms. Bird

and the police officer who attended the Property, his evidence does not provide a defence to the charges. Mr. Visser’s testimony is that he told the District that if they would not co-operate with him, he would do it (cut the trees) anyway. These were not the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person in his position would have provided the detailed report the District required to permit the tree cutting. Further, if concerned about the stability of the slope on his property, a reasonable person would have paid the necessary fees and obtained the required engineering report.

A reasonable person would not do what he wanted despite knowing what was required of him. [ 55 ] Mr. Visser’s closing comments were that the District made a mistake by not co-operating with him in an “emergency” situation and, in doing so, forced Mr. Visser to take matters into his own hands. He asserted that the photos submitted by the witnesses for the District clearly show the situation he faced.

He submits that the Tree Protection Bylaw covers urgent situations where a tree falling could cause damage to property or a person whereas in his case, he had the trees cut to preserve the bank and that, he submits, is not covered in the bylaw. DECISION [ 56 ] I find the following facts based on the evidence of Ms. Bird, Mr. Gallagher and Mr. McLelland, whose evidence I accept: • Mr.

Visser had been expressing concern with staff at the District, since at least late December 2015, about his desire to have trees on his property cut or “reduced” because of concerns he had that the trees posed a danger of falling and taking the bank with them; • Mr. Visser provided the District with a brief report that he had received from an arborist dated January 13, 2015, which contained a recommendation that Mr. Visser “re-top” a group of 8 trees that had previously been topped.

The report made no mention of slope stability nor did it identify the trees that were the subject of the recommendation. • The District advised Mr. Visser that the arborist’s report was not sufficiently detailed to justify the District’s issuing a permit to cut trees on the Property as the property was inside the EDPA and in a steep slope area and the trees were protected under the District’s Tree Protection Bylaw. • Mr. Visser did not provide a detailed report to the District and did not obtain a permit to cut trees on the Property. • Mr.

Visser knew that he required a permit to cut the trees and that more was required of him to obtain such a permit but he chose to have the trees cut without obtaining the permit. • Mr. Visser arranged to have the trees cut at a time when he thought the District would not be available to enforce the Tree Protection Bylaw . • The tree-cutters hired by Mr. Visser told Ms. Bird that they had a permit to cut the trees when they did not, and Mr. Visser told both Ms.

Bird and the attending police officer that he had a permit to cut the trees when he knew he did not. • The tree-cutters felled trees onto the beach when there were members of the public and animals on the beach below; over the objections of Ms. Bird and at least two other members of the public; and without taking any steps to ensure the safety of the public. • The tree-tops and debris from the tree-cutting were left on the banks of the Property and on the beach below and no attempt was made by Mr.

Visser to clean-up after the tree-cutting or to notify the District that the cutting had taken place. • Of those trees cut on the Property, 10 were protected trees within the meaning of the District’s Tree Protection Bylaw including a Big Leaf Maple, (tagged 0801) which was protected regardless of whether it was in the EDPA and 9 alders (tagged 0804-0812) that were in the EDPA (4 of which were also protected as trees with a DBH greater than 60 cm.) [ 57 ] I am satisfied that by taking the actions he did, Mr.

Visser caused the tagged trees identified on the municipal tickets identified above to be altered or cut contrary to

Section 7 of the Tree Protection Permit. [ 58 ] For the purposes of this case, I do not find it necessary to decide whether any of the cut trees were in a “steep slope” area as that term is used in the Tree Protection Bylaw. [ 59 ] To the extent that there is any inconsistency in the evidence of the witnesses for the District and that of Mr. Visser, I prefer the evidence of the witnesses for the District each of whom gave their testimony clearly, candidly and without wavering under cross- examination. Mr.

Visser was argumentative, evasive and vague in his testimony and, at times, contradictory or refused to answer questions. [ 60 ] Mr. Visser did not clearly articulate any defence to the charges of cutting protected trees without a permit contrary to

Section 7 of the Tree Protection Bylaw nor can I ascertain any defence that might have been available to him had he articulated it. [ 61 ] It is clear to me that, based on the evidence which I accept, Mr. Visser had been interested in having trees on his property “re- topped” or “reduced” in height for many months – possibly as early as January 2015 when he obtained the report from an arborist at Garden City Tree and Landscape but, in any event, no later than February 18, 2016, when Mr. Gallagher and other staff from the District attended the Property for a site visit to discuss Mr.

Visser’s concerns with him and to explain the permitting process under the Tree Protection Bylaw to him. [ 62 ] I find that the District repeatedly advised Mr. Visser by telephone, in person and by letter that he would be required to submit a detailed arborist report if he wanted to obtain permission to cut trees on the Property as it was inside the EDPA and the trees were protected under the Tree Protection Bylaw. By choosing to act without permission and knowing that the District did not approve of the tree-cutting, Mr. Visser acted unreasonably and, in my view, recklessly. He was not diligent.

[ 63 ] I find Mr. Visser guilty of the offence of cutting the identified trees on each of Municipal Tickets M02236, M02239, M02240, M02241, M02242, M02243, M02244, M02245, M02246, M02247 contrary to

Section 7 of the District’s Tree Protection Bylaw, No. 9272 . The fine for each offence is to be $1,000.00 for a total of $10,000.00.