Can a parent be held liable for their children’s trespass and nuisance damages?

30. So, I find the respondents’ child supervision was not negligent, and they are not liable for any of their children’s trespass or nuisance damages. I also dismiss the applicants’ claim for aggravated damages, because the evidence fails to show that the respondents’ conduct (or their children’s) was particularly poor and caused the applicants intangible losses, such as mental distress and emotional shock (see Gibson v. F.K. Developments Ltd. et al, 2017 BCSC 2153 at para. 54). I find the applicants failed to prove mental distress, injury, or other intangible applicant losses.

31. Given my finding that the respondents’ supervision of their children was not negligent, it is unnecessary to address the issues of whether the respondents’ children trespassed on the applicants’ property or created a nuisance. That said, I do note the following about nuisance. Contrary to the applicants’ submission, I find there is no evidence showing that the children or their equipment ever unreasonably blocked access to the applicants’ driveway. I also find the evidence fails to show the respondents’ children were excessively noisy, particularly in light of the evidence of other community play activities. According to the nuisance test set out in Burke v. Linder, 2014 BCSC 1798, I find the evidence fails to show that the respondents’ children interfered with the applicants’ property interest, either substantially or unreasonably, so nuisance is not proven.