Who pays for the fence — building it, and repairing it

The rule in one line

A fence entirely on your side of the line is yours, and so is the bill. You do not need your neighbour's agreement to build it.

A fence on the line makes the neighbours legally equal partners in it, and generally each pays half to build or repair it. But you cannot impose it: a fence along the property line requires your neighbour's agreement, on both the type and the cost.

So the money question and the consent question have the same answer, and it is: where exactly is the line, and which side of it is the fence on.

Why the "no 50/50 law" claim is only half right

BC does have one statutory 50/50 fence duty. The Trespass Act [RSBC 2018] c. 3, s. 10 says that owners of adjoining land in a rural area must keep up the lawful fence between them, and that each is liable to the other for half of any cost reasonably incurred.

Two things stop it reaching Greater Victoria. "Rural area" is not defined anywhere in the Act — checked across the whole text. And "lawful fence" means a lawful fence as defined by regulation, and the regulation's general definition is scoped to "all unorganized portions of the Province". All thirteen Greater Victoria local governments are incorporated municipalities. The duty attaches to a definition that does not exist for this market's land.

A note on citations: People's Law School still cites this as RSBC 1996 c. 462 s. 3. That chapter was revised as the Trespass Act, RS2018 c. 3, effective 1 October 2018, and the provision is now s. 10. Anyone quoting "c. 462 s. 3" today is quoting a replaced Act.

When the wind takes it down

Nothing about cost sharing changes because a storm knocked the fence over. The same test applies: a fence on your side is your repair, a fence on the line is a shared one, and the municipal bylaws in force decide what you may rebuild to.

What *can* change is the height you are allowed. An existing over-height fence is usually treated as legal non-conforming, but that protection can end when the fence is replaced rather than repaired. Where repair becomes replacement is not defined in any of the thirteen bylaws we read, and we have not been able to verify it. Before rebuilding something taller than today's limit, ask your municipality in writing.

If the fence turns out to be on the wrong side

The Property Law Act s. 36(2) names this expressly, and it is worth reading because it is stronger than most people expect. Where, on the survey of land, a fence has been improperly located so as to enclose adjoining land, the Supreme Court may declare an easement with compensation, vest title to the enclosed land in the encroaching owner with compensation, or order the fence removed.

Two things follow. A misplaced fence is not a minor annoyance the law ignores — it is a named ground on which a court can move the title to your land. And the section opens on *the survey of land*: the survey is not an optional luxury at the front of the job, it is the evidence the whole remedy runs on.

People's Law School adds that a court weighs intent, how far the fence intrudes, and what removal would cost, and that this runs by petition in BC Supreme Court — one to two months, rather than a full action.

Do not let anyone move a survey pin

Moving a survey monument is an offence under the Criminal Code s. 442 — "Every one who wilfully pulls down, defaces, alters or removes anything planted or set up as the boundary line or part of the boundary line of land is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Note "anything planted or set up as the boundary line": that is broader than iron pins. A crew that pulls a pin to make a post line look straight is the live risk here, and it is your land the record then rests on.