A B.C. Supreme Court judge sure wasn鈥檛 sitting on the fence on this one.

Justice Patrice Abrioux awarded a Surrey resident鈥檚 neighbour with $26,537.53 in damages related to a court battle between two women over a fence separating their properties in Panorama Village.

He ordered the defendant in the lawsuit, Christina Sun, to pay her neighbour Jan Heather Gibson, the plaintiff, $500 damages in trespass, $12,500 damages in nuisance, $8,537.53 in special damages for out-of-pocket expenses either incurred or to be incurred, and $5,000 in punitive damages.

The judge determined Sun, whom he found to be a 鈥渟ophisticated businesswoman,鈥� was 鈥渁ggressive and confrontational鈥� with her neighbour and that both the front fence the back fence, the latter which she had removed, 鈥渨ere not, in whole or it part, located on Ms. Sun鈥檚 鈥榦wn鈥� property.鈥�

The court heard Sun鈥檚 property is subject to a 24-inch 鈥淎ccess Easement鈥� in favour of the Gibson property, registered in 1997.

Abrioux rendered his judgment on July 30, following a 10-day trial in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.

鈥淧unitive damages do not serve a compensatory function,鈥� the judge noted in his . 鈥淭hey are intended to punish and deter.鈥�

鈥淚t is clear that much of Ms. Sun鈥檚 behaviour has been malicious and oppressive, and the evidence highlights the inappropriate and disruptive nature of Ms. Sun鈥檚 behavior,鈥� Abrioux found.

According to the court document Gibson owns a house at 14908 57th Ave. and Sun owns a house at 14902 57th Ave. The properties adjoin one another in Surrey鈥檚 Panorama Village development.

The judge noted that on Feb. 26, 2016, Sun 鈥渆xercised a self-help remedy鈥� by removing a fence that had been there for several years prior to Gibson buying the property in 2010.

Both accused each other of 鈥渢respass and nuisance鈥� and sought damages.

Sun bought her property in 2008. The court heard she owned several rental properties and this one was rented to her former husband and their son. Gibson, a retired city clerk for the City of New Westminster, bought her property in 2010. She lived there with her husband and son.

When Gibson bought her place, there was no fence in the front yard and in the back there was a privacy fence between the two properties. The court heard she and her husband had a fence erected in the front yard in 2011. Sun told the court she became aware in October 2015 that both fences were on her property and delivered a 鈥淣otice of Trespass鈥� to Gibson, calling for the fences to be removed or she would hire a contractor to do it and Gibson would be billed. Gibson and her husband had the front yard fence removed.

Abrioux found that Sun had the back fence unlawfully removed.

鈥淭here will also be a permanent injunction permitting the plaintiff to replace and maintain the destroyed back privacy fence,鈥� he decided.