The homeowner appealed a decision of the Property Standards Committee confirming a municipal order requiring pruning of a hazardous tree located on the appellant’s property.
Evidence showed the tree’s trunk and roots straddled the boundary of three adjacent properties, raising issues of shared ownership under s. 10 of the Forestry Act.
The court conducted a de novo hearing under s. 15 of the Building Code Act and considered whether the maintenance order could properly require a single owner to bear the entire cost.
The court held that where a tree may be a boundary tree shared among adjoining properties, it was inappropriate to impose sole responsibility for maintenance on one owner without evidence of the neighbouring owners’ positions.
The committee’s decision was rescinded and the matter left to the municipality to address with all affected owners.
