The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal challenging the quantum of damages awarded for trespass involving the removal of trees.
The trial judge had granted summary judgment for trespass and subsequently awarded damages for tree replacement, irrigation, fencing, and "loss of amenities" based on the cost of reasonable restoration.
The appellants argued errors in applying foreseeability, assessing the plaintiff's intent to build, and drainage-related findings.
The appellate court found no reviewable error, affirming the trial judge's holistic approach to damages, the application of the Kates v. Hall restoration principle, and the rejection of arguments that the damages were unforeseeable or that the trees would have been removed anyway.
