Telus must pay damages for trespassing on woman's property, B.C. tribunal rules

The Telus logo is seen on the outside of the company's headquarters in downtown Vancouver, on Jan. 19, 2023. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck)

A major telecommunications company has been ordered to pay “nominal damages” to a B.C. woman after employees repeatedly trespassed on her property – in one instance accidentally letting her dog out of her gate.

Linda Langston filed a dispute against Telus Communications Inc. through the province's small claims tribunal, accusing employees and contractors of entering her property without permission on multiple occasions over several months.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal heard the trouble between Langston and the telecom began in July 2022, when Telus was upgrading cables in her area from copper to fibre and made two unannounced visits to her property to access BC Hydro poles.

"Ms. Langston says that she permitted the workers to proceed with their work on these occasions, but asked that they contact her in advance for permission to enter her property in the future so that she could restrain her animals," tribunal member Alison Wake wrote in her decision, which was posted online this week. "Telus does not dispute this."

Weeks later, a worker showed up to test the equipment and parked in Langston's driveway, leaving her gate open in the process and allowing one of her dogs to escape.

According to the decision, an "altercation ensued" and the worker "left Ms. Langston's property without completing the testing."

Owner balked at lengthy arrival window

Over the months that followed, Telus communicated with Langston over email and phone several times seeking to arrange additional visits – with the property owner declining one request outright, and taking issue with another after the company suggested a lengthy arrival window of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Langston was not a Telus customer at the time, the tribunal heard.

On Sept. 15 of that year, another employee visited unannounced and left her gate open again.

Telus said the technician was "attempting to install services for one of Ms. Langston’s neighbours" and was "unaware of the ongoing discussions" about access to her property, Wake wrote.

The two parties were ultimately able to agree on some access dates, and in November started negotiating a right-of-way agreement for Telus employees – but their talks stalled, and Langston asked Telus to remove its equipment instead. The company agreed to do so.

The final trespass claimed by Langston occurred on Feb. 13, when a Telus crew used her driveway to turn around.

Determining trespasses

For its part, Telus argued Langston's demands were "impractical" – suggesting that if she needed notification every time the company was doing work on behalf of one of her neighbours, her contact information would need to be placed on her neighbours' accounts, which could create privacy issues.

Wake disagreed.

"There is no evidence that Telus communicated this concern to Ms. Langston," the tribunal member wrote. "Further, Telus undisputedly did comply with Ms. Langston’s request for advance notice on several occasions, so I find it was capable of doing so."

Part of the dispute also hinged on the notion of consent – a potential defence to trespass that does not necessarily need to be formalized in an agreement, Wake explained, but can also be “implied through conduct or acquiescence.”

Telus pointed to a 2013 B.C. Supreme Court case in which a property owner had allowed a business initial access to their property, then later withdrew consent as part of a "strategic game to secure an advantage and possibly compensation."

Wake found the circumstances were different in Langston's case.

The tribunal member accepted Langston's explanation that she allowed the first two unscheduled visits on good faith assuming the work would be done quickly, then changed her terms when it became clear it would not.

Wake accepted that Telus trespassed on Langston’s property three times, including the brief use of her driveway in February 2023, which the tribunal member categorized as “trivial.”

Langston claimed $5,000 in damages for the incidents – the highest amount allowed for disputes of this kind filed through the CRT – but Wake decided “nominal damages” of $300 was more appropriate.

"While I acknowledge Ms. Langston’s concerns about her animals’ safety, there is no evidence that any of her animals were harmed on any of the occasions noted above," she wrote. "There is also no evidence, and Ms. Langston does not suggest, that Telus caused any damage to her property."

On top of the $300, Telus was ordered to pay the property owner $127 in pre-judgement interest and tribunal fees.