Bavelas v. Copley et al., (1999) 10 B.C.T.C. 371 (SC)

• Judge: Drost, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 17, 1998
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1999), 10 B.C.T.C. 371 (SC)

Bavelas v. Copley (1999), 10 B.C.T.C. 371 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.145

Janet Bavelas (plaintiff) v. Robert T. Copley, Jean Copley, Darren Copley, Lane Copley, the Corporation of the District of Saanich and Copley Bros. Construction Ltd. (defendants)

(960402)

Indexed As: Bavelas v. Copley et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Victoria

Drost, J.

April 23, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff owned a property, a substan­tial part of which was a marsh or pond, which formed part of a lake to river drainage system. The defendants (the Copleys) owned property across the road from the plaintiff upon which they built a new home. The plaintiff claimed that in order to facilitate the passage of rain water away from the defen­dants' property, the defendants trespassed upon the plaintiff's property and dug an artificial drainage ditch in the direction of the marsh, destroying brush and natural vegetation in the process. The plaintiff claimed that this act of trespass resulted in an illegal and unauthorized diversion or modification of the existing drainage system and patterns both within the municipal road right-of-way and over her property. The plaintiff claimed further that the local muni­cipality was also liable for nuisance for failing to take action to divert or eliminate the increased flow of water resulting from the development on the Copley property. The plaintiff sued for damages.

The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed the action. The court held that the actions of the Copleys created a nuisance. Further, the municipality participated in the creation of the nuisance. The court awarded damages against the Copleys and the munici­pality and ordered the defendants to take steps to change the drainage system. The court also awarded $10,000 for punitive damages against the Copleys.

Damage Awards - Topic 545

Torts - Injury to land and buildings - Nuisance - See paragraphs 160 to 185.

Damage Awards - Topic 550

Torts - Injury to land and buildings - Trespass - See paragraphs 160 to 185.

Damage Awards - Topic 552

Torts - Injury to land and buildings - Interference with surface water - See para­graphs 160 to 185.

Damage Awards - Topic 2020

Exemplary or punitive damages - Trespass to land - See paragraphs 160 to 185.

Damage Awards - Topic 2030.9

Exemplary or punitive damages - Nuisance - See paragraphs 177 to 185.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 3148

Actions in tort - Tortious acts of a continu­ing nature - Nuisance - See paragraphs 148 to 153.

Municipal Law - Topic 1866

Liability of municipalities - Nuisance - Interference with flow of surface water - See paragraphs 143 to 147.

Municipal Law - Topic 1875

Liability of municipalities - Nuisance - Defences - Statutory immunity or authority - See paragraphs 143 to 147.

Municipal Law - Topic 6242

Actions against municipality - Conditions precedent - Notice of action or accident - General - See paragraphs 154 to 159.

Torts - Topic 1411

Nuisance - Injury to property - Neighbour­ing owners - Escape of water - See para­graphs 94 to 147.

Torts - Topic 1800

Nuisance - Defences - Statutory authority - See paragraphs 143 to 147.

Waters - Topic 103

Natural watercourses - Riparian rights - Definitions - Watercourse - See paragraphs 94 to 134.

Waters - Topic 1306

Surface waters - Natural drainage - Into a watercourse - See paragraphs 135 to 147.

Waters - Topic 1308

Surface waters - Natural drainage - Artifi­cial increase by landowner in rate of flow of drainage - See paragraphs 135 to 147.

Waters - Topic 1364

Surface waters - Artificial drainage - Lower landowners - See paragraphs 135 to 147.

Cases Noticed:

Edwards v. Scott (Rural Municipality), [1934] 1 W.W.R. 33 (Sask. C.A.), affd. [1934] S.C.R. 332, refd to. [para. 100].

Graham v. Lister (1908), 14 B.C.R. 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101].

Caplin et al. v. Gill and Kaur (1977), 5 B.C.L.R. 115 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

Jansen Contracting Ltd. v. North Cowichan (District) et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. 860 (S.C.), dist. [para. 122].

Kerlenmar Holdings Ltd. v. Matsqui (Dis­trict) et al. (1989), 40 B.C.L.R.(2d) 230 (S.C.), revd. in part (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 180; 1 W.A.C. 180; 56 B.C.L.R.(2d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

Peace Portal Properties Ltd. v. Surrey (District) (1990), 70 D.L.R.(4th) 525 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 135].

North Vancouver (District) v. McKenzie Barge & Marine Ways Ltd. (1965), 51 W.W.R.(N.S.) 193 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 145].

Medomist Farms Ltd. et al. v. Surrey (District) (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 189; 17 W.A.C. 189; 62 B.C.L.R.(2d) 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 147].

Grewal v. Saanich (District) (1989), 38 B.C.L.R.(2d) 250 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 152].

Palisade Properties (1985) Ltd. v. Surrey District (1991), 5 M.P.L.R.(2d) 206 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 152].

Estepanian (Guardian ad litem of) v. Brown (1996), 31 M.P.L.R.(2d) 245 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 156].

Kates v. Hall (1991), 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 163].

Austin v. Rescon Construction (1984) Ltd. (1989), 36 B.C.L.R.(2d) 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

Horseshoe Bay Retirement Society v. S.I.F. Development Corp. (1990), 66 D.L.R.(4th) 42 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 178].

Petrie v. Lamont (1841), Car. & M. 93; 174 E.R. 424, refd to. [para. 181].

Statutes Noticed:

Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, sect. 286(1), sect. 286(3) [para. 154]; sect. 560(1), sect. 560(6) [para. 102].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (3rd Ed.), vol. 34, p. 149-26 [para. 99].

Counsel:

L. John Alexander, for the plaintiff;

Michael O'Meara, for the defendants, Robert T. Copley, Jean Copley, Darren Copley, Lane Copley and Copley Bros. Construction Ltd.;

Guy E. McDannold and Christopher G. Nation, for the Corporation of the Dis­trict of Saanich.

This action was heard at Victoria, British Columbia, on January 12-16, March 23-27 and April 17, 1998, by Drost, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on April 23, 1999.