B.C. couple ordered to pay neighbours $443,000 in 'vile' fight over shared driveway

A Lions Bay couple has been ordered to pay an additional $335,000 in a legal fight with neighbours over a shared driveway.

According to a recent decision by B.C. Supreme Court associate judge Amy Peck, Tracey Song and George Liu deliberately dragged out a legal spat with neighbours Cindy and Richard David in an attempt to financially drain them.

Peck was responsible for determining what special costs Song and Liu should pay after an earlier court ruling awarded $108,750 in damages to the Davids stemming from a dispute over their shared driveway that escalated into a “vile” public online smear campaign.

Song and Liu will now have to pay their neighbours a combined $443,750.

“Special costs are not compensatory, they are punitive. The purpose of special costs is to censure and deter litigation misconduct, not to compensate the plaintiff,” Peck wrote.

The spat began when the Davids carried out construction of a new carport and deck and other renovations on their property from April 2021 to April 2022, which agitated their neighbours, according to court records. Liu and Song alleged construction vehicles had caused substantial damage to the driveway.

In April 2022, Liu dug a drainage trench across the shared driveway and placed two sawhorses blocking the driveway. The Davids contacted police and also went to court to get an injunction to have the barricades removed and to stop the digging.

That same month, Liu posted a series of messages in Chinese on a neighbourhood WeChat forum about the Davids that a trial judge later found defamatory.

The trial judge awarded the Davids aggravated and punitive damages.

In assessing whether Liu and Song should incur additional special costs, Peck noted the trial judge found the defendants’ written closing submissions at trial were “consistent with an attempt to exhaust or financially drain the plaintiffs.”

The trial judge, Peck wrote, also found that Liu only stopped digging the trench and otherwise obstructing the shared driveway when the Davids obtained an injunction to prohibit him from doing so.

“That behaviour, too, ‘aligns with their motive to exhaust or financially drain the plaintiffs.'”

Liu and Song challenged some of the Davids’ claims for special costs.

However, Peck found the lawyer representing the Davids was careful, conservative and diligent in preparing evidence in support of submissions to the court.

“He reduced and removed even small claims that he did not think he could justify, some in direct response to the defendants’ complaints. This is a commendable approach and gives the court further confidence in the reasonableness in general of the plaintiffs’ costs claim,” Peck wrote.

Related

dcarrigg@postmedia.com