A British Columbia municipality is seeking $30,000 in damages from the parents of a teen graffiti vandal, in what is thought to be the first Canadian case of a city suing parents for damages caused by a child.
In a statement of claim filed in September, the city of Langford says “the defendant parents failed to exercise the parental duty of care to supervise and control the activities of their son.”
The spray-can toting young offender pled guilty last spring to nine charges of mischief under the Criminal Code related to graffiti incidents. However, the city has found more than 150 of his signature tags, and claims its clean-up costs total more than $25,000.
"The parents created an atmosphere of permissiveness. It’s vicarious liability," Langford’s lawyer Troy de Souza told local newspapers. "We're getting to the point in society where parents have to take greater responsibility for the actions of their kids."
According to the city’s statement of claim, the parents did nothing to stop their son’s vandalism despite at least two warnings from the RCMP about the tagging. 
While the British Columbia courts will have to decide on the merit of Langford’s case, Ontario municipalities have an easier time collecting money from parents, thanks to the province’s Parental Responsibility Act.
Under the Act, parents can be held financially responsible for up to $10,000 in intentional damage or destruction to property caused by children under the age of 18.
Municipal officials in London, Ontario have successfully used the legislation to bill parents for graffiti damage caused by their children.
Orest Katolyk, London’s manager of bylaw enforcement, says bills of $500 to $1,000 have been sent to a handful of parents whose teens were caught red-handed in graffiti defacement. Although the threat of legal action accompanied the bills, the city has thus far been paid without court action.
The southwestern Ontario city, which spends about $300,000 a year on graffiti removal, was the first in Canada to pass a bylaw restricting the sale of spray paint and other graffiti implements to people under 18 years old.
Shortly after the bylaw was approved in 2006, the city employed an underage test shopper to attempt to purchase supplies at various stores. Charges were laid against 30 stores, and since then compliance with the bylaw has been very good, says Katolyk.
One local Canadian Tire store even has a sign posted about the bylaw at every cashier, helping to raise public awareness of the bylaw and the issue.
With graffiti damage costing Canadian municipalities millions of dollars a year, most communities have developed graffiti management plans, and many offer online or phone tip lines to allow residents to report graffiti.
With evidence indicating that immediate removal is the best way to deter repeated graffiti offences, many municipalities have established policies for removal within 24 to 72 hours of discovery.
During a Halifax council discussion of graffiti issues, Halifax police Const. James Bennett said getting rid of defacement is essential to keeping city surfaces clean.
"Anything over 10 days has a 100 per cent chance of reoccurrence," Bennett said.
Programs that hire or recruit teen volunteers to paint over graffiti appear to have met with some success, while the Vancouver Island municipality of Esquimalt has taken the initiative to wrap electrical kiosks, mailboxes and similar surfaces in a graffiti-proof vinyl laminate covered in scenic photos from local parks. The product has been successful in deterring graffiti and allowing for easy removal of tagging.
