2 total
Defendant fined $5,000 without probation for removing a hazardous boundary tree without neighbour's consent.
The defendant was convicted of injuring or destroying a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owner, contrary to section 10(3) of the Forestry Act.
The sentencing hearing addressed the appropriate penalty under the Act, which provides for a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three months.
The court considered mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of criminal record, his receipt of a municipal permit of exemption identifying the tree as hazardous, and his cooperation through an agreed statement of facts.
The court also considered aggravating factors including the impact on the neighbours and the delay in removing the tree despite knowledge of its hazardous status.
The court imposed a fine of $5,000 and declined to impose a probation order.
The defendant was convicted under the Forestry Act for removing a hazardous boundary tree without the adjoining landowners' consent, despite having a municipal exemption.
A private information was brought against the defendant for injuring or destroying a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owner, contrary to section 10(3) of the Forestry Act of Ontario.
The defendant, a property owner, had instructed a tree removal company to cut down a Norway maple tree located on the property line between his property and the plaintiff's property.
The defendant had obtained a Confirmation of Exemption from the City of Toronto identifying the tree as imminently hazardous and requiring its removal.
The defendant argued that no conflict existed between the provincial Forestry Act and the City of Toronto's municipal code regarding hazardous trees, and that he was entitled to remove the tree based on the city's determination.
The court found that the defendant had failed to obtain the consent of the co-owners before removal, despite the exemption document explicitly stating that the applicant must resolve ownership issues.
The defendant was convicted of the offence.