The Court of Appeal saved the branches of two maple trees involved in a dispute between neighbors in Alma, in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. She overturned the decision of a judge who had ordered an owner to cut all the branches which encroached on his neighbor’s land, because they dropped leaves and samaras which “stained” his recreational vehicle and his pavement.
The two neighboring properties are located in a wooded area of Alma. A homeowner complains about his neighbor’s two maple trees, some of whose branches overhang his pale gray paving stone as well as the roof of his recreational vehicle (RV), parked on his property.
He applied to the court for an order to have the two trees cut down “on the grounds that they cause them abnormal neighborhood inconveniences”, or to have the branches which are encroaching on his land cut down. These trees cause him inconveniences: he has to collect a lot of leaves on his land, on the roof of his RV, and in his gutters, he says, and these leave “unaesthetic” brown spots on the canvas of the VR and on its pale gray pavement.
At the end of three days of trial – during which four experts testified – the Superior Court judge refused to have the trees cut down, but gave the green light to cut the encroaching branches.
She notes that one of the two trees “rejects samaras and leaves in the fall” and that if the other does not reject samaras – but nothing excludes that this will not be the case in the future, takes – she is careful to specify – it “rejects a large quantity of leaves”.
The judge considers that these encroaching branches “seriously” harm the use that the owner can make of his land, “given the stains caused to the RV as well as to the pavement. »
From the outset, the Court of Appeal, called upon to examine this case, noted that “the execution of this order would ensure that these two trees, which run along the dividing line, would be practically devoid of branches on all one side of their trunk. »
In their decision rendered Monday, the three judges who heard the case recall that “the right to property is not absolute”, and note that the legislator, who enacted the current Civil Code, sought to increase the protection granted to trees.
They rule that the judge made an error here by equating an “inconvenience” with a “serious nuisance.” »
Article 985 of the Civil Code of Quebec
“It is difficult to imagine that the fact for the respondents of having to wash the canvas of their RV as well as their paving stone could seriously harm the use of their funds,” ruled the Court of Appeal.
They live in a wooded neighborhood, which makes it attractive, notes the Court. “It is normal that at a certain time of year, the leaves and samaras that fall from the trees leave marks on the roof of their RV as well as on their paving stones. They also disappear when you wash them. »
And then, there are other trees in the surrounding area: their leaves also fall and can end up on the gray pavement. This is why the Superior Court judge could not conclude that only the two maples were the cause of the inconvenience suffered.
“Certainly, the respondents suffer some inconvenience, but nothing that comes close to being a serious nuisance. The criterion of serious nuisance must not be trivialized,” she writes, breaking the order for cutting branches.