wow- what a foolish ruling.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nd-a-changed-legal-landscape/article12698935/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...nd-a-changed-legal-landscape/article12698935/
clayton ruby strikes again
- Thread starter red
- Start date
Why is it foolish?
"On May 17, Justice J. Patrick Moore ruled that a shared tree under the provincial Forestry Act starts from where its roots join the trunk up to where the trunk branches out. Justice Moore dismissed the idea of defining a trunk at ground level alone as “arbitrary.”
The ruling gave the neighbours on Humewood Drive common ownership of the tree under provincial law.
"
"On May 17, Justice J. Patrick Moore ruled that a shared tree under the provincial Forestry Act starts from where its roots join the trunk up to where the trunk branches out. Justice Moore dismissed the idea of defining a trunk at ground level alone as “arbitrary.”
The ruling gave the neighbours on Humewood Drive common ownership of the tree under provincial law.
"
Not that I'm a tree hugger, but it's in compliance with the provincial Forestry Act.
However, two comments by readers raise important issues (will Hydro be allowed to cut an overhanging tree branch that nears a line without my permission and what about the liability from a tree that might fall over to your neighbour?):
Score: 22
Gundi
7:49 AM on June 20, 2013
What about trees on public lands? What about the many perfectly healthy, beautiful trees that are cut down with alarming regularity by municipalities because they supposedly are an eye-sore or whatever? If the laws pertaining to trees, shrubs, foliage etc. are going to be tightened (which I strongly believe they should be), they should be tightened right across the board, for both private individuals and public entities like municipalities, schools, the province itself. Otherwise, this will likely end up resulting in regulations with one set of demands and rules for individuals, for private property owners and another for public institutions, for municipal and/or provincial lands/parks (and that would be both hypocritical and a massive double standard).
Score: 14
Old Curmudgeon
8:22 AM on June 20, 2013
This article addresses only one of several issues. Where the base of the trunk is on one property but part of the tree overhangs an adjoining property, do both parties "co-own" the entire tree, or does each party "own" the part of the tree on/overhanging his or her respective property? If the overhang falls, who is responsible for the damage (historically, it has been the responsibility of the person on whose property the base of the trunk of the tree is situate)? Is liability joint or is it totally the responsibility of the person owning the property under the overhang? What if the people subject to the overhang wish to remove the overhang because it is in danger of falling and causing damage? What if the people on whose property the tree is situate want to remove the tree? Do they need permission of the neighbours who "co-own" the tree? What if the neighbours refuse permission? What if one neighbour wishes to obtain expensive treatment to prolong the life of a tree but the other neighbour doesn't? Is each required to pay half the cost of the treatment?
I'm sure the people who are so happy they won this decision would be only too quick to sue their neighbours for any damage caused if the overhang fell in their yard and damaged their house. As a result of this decision, they may not be able to do so.
A bad decision. Someone (especially an insurer) should appeal for the sake of clarity.
The case attempted to define just where the tree starts and stops. The point at which the trunk meets the ground seemed arbitrary and did not take into consideration the biological structure of the entire tree. Such natural structure extends to its roots and to its canopy.
Seems logical to me.
Seems logical to me.
so a branch or a root goes on your neighbours property and they are now a joint owner of the tree?
I don't know about just 'a branch' or 'a root'. The article quotes the Forestry Act which refers to 'roots' and where 'trunk branches out'.
If people start enforcing this ruling on their neighbours for minimal or minor encroachment, I think we're gonna see some neighbourly brawls if not worse.
if i have a tree on my property that i want to take down- why do i have to involve the neighbour?
Most of the trunk and roots are on Neighbour A who wants to cut the tree because it may fall but Neighbour B said hell no since most of the tree's branches sprawled high up over onto B's property (she likes the shade and will pay to prevent the tree from falling with cables). The tree is on A's land. It just grew high and over B's.
It may not be underground your neighbour's property. I think if it just sprawls over (in this case, MOST of the tree's higher branches sprawled over), it can be considered joint property. (They refer to 'wayward branches').
No problem at all to ask. To get permission, especially where cost might be involved, is a much more difficult thing. What this report doesn't make clear is just how the two-party owner situation it created out of a pair of disputing neighbours can be expected to get anything done.
The only comfort, for those who plan four or five decades ahead, is that we now know to trim every branch of our young sapling as it crosses the fence line. On the other hand, it would apparently clarify just who is the 'owner' of the willow roots from next-door that need constant RotoRootering™.
I'm with red on this one. If it's not outright stupid, it is not a helpful decision.
I can't figure this decision out. Effectively, it makes any tree maintenance a nightmare. It also makes eliminating an invasive species (the Norway Maple) illegal, which can't be a good precedent.
Also, it takes a bit to track down 170 Humewood in google earth, however that house is a vine-encrusted mess.
I have a neighbour that has let trees and vines grow wild around a brick house. The trees and vines have destroyed the house, and it did not take very many years.
Also, it takes a bit to track down 170 Humewood in google earth, however that house is a vine-encrusted mess.
I have a neighbour that has let trees and vines grow wild around a brick house. The trees and vines have destroyed the house, and it did not take very many years.
I'm with you and Red. The problem is that the tree lobby in Toronto is extremely powerful. They want to turn Toronto into another Amazon Forest.
That's perhaps an overstatement. But anyone who has travelled out of a treeless neighbourhood into one where trees shade the road can testify how effectively they lessen the laod on air conditioning and how much more pleasant they make the summer. We were stupid not to continue the early XXth C's fashion for large trees. Sadly many were planted almost simultaneously, so now they're dying off the same way and denuding whole streets at once. What we're planting now are species deliberately chosen to stay small and not give us the benefits the earlier trees did. And all maintenance of the small trees can be left to the property owners. Because, 'we're taxed to death here! Do nothing that costs me taxes! Not even if it would save me money!"
But 'private' trees on 'private' lands? Trees have no understanding of such stuff and just grow; we've been taking each other to court over trees ever since I learned to read newspapers, and I kinda think we could find a tree/property case in the earliest records of the earliest courts.
Last edited:
