Splitting from a partner can make dividing up assets tricky. One situation in BC proved this to be true when Lisa Peterson’s fence was allegedly stolen by her ex-partner’s brother.
Peterson and her previous partner, identified only by NW in the court documents, lived together as common law partners for 11 years. They split in early 2022, and NW remained on their property until April 2023.
The split turned sour in February 2023 when Dustin Dapp and Alison Dapp allegedly removed cedar fence panels and a gate from the property. Dustin Dapp is NW’s brother.
According to the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), Peterson filed a $2,762.35 claim against the Dapps when they refused to return the structures. She based the amount on how much it cost her to purchase the fence and gate and have them installed.
That’s one unusual ex-family feud.
Peterson told the court that the fence was a fixture of the property, which she is the sole owner of. As such, she claimed that the Dapps were not entitled to take it.
However, the Dapps claimed they were given the fence as a gift from her ex-partner and legally removed it from the property. NW supported this claim and told the court that they paid for and owned half of the fence and gifted it when they still lived on the property.
Peterson hit back at their claims.
The property is on Squamish Nation Reserve land, where the Housing Policy says that “only Squamish Nation members can have a legal interest or rights in any ‘residence’ or ‘lot.’” Peterson is a member of the Squamish Nation, while her ex-partner is not. Therefore, NW had no ownership over the property or right to gift the fence.
According to the court, the Housing Policy states that when non-members financially contribute to a member spouse for their residence, they do not acquire any residential rights. As such, NW would have to pursue a financial claim with the member (Peterson) for any shared value they had for the fence.
Using the Housing Policy and the remaining fence posts as evidence, the court determined that the fence was indeed a permanent fixture on the property as the posts were installed on the lot.
The court ordered the Dapps to pay Peterson for the fence despite their claims that they still possessed the panels and could return them. Given the unknown condition of the fence panels, monetary damages were found to be more suitable compensation.
The Dapps were ordered to pay Peterson a total of $3,504.40, including $2,762.35 in damages for the fence panels and its labour fees for installation, $168.70 in pre-judgment interest, $125 in tribunal fees, and $448.35 in dispute-related expenses.