[Makarov]

Originally Posted by New Era

This guy should be looking for legal help from CHL, seeing as property damage isn't a thing.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...esults-charges

The RCMP seem to investigate "property damage" a lot for something that isn't against the law.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...roperty-damage
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...ley-substation
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...eft-ball-field
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...music-festival
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...murray-harbour
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/20...roperty-damage

Not just the RCMP either. CPS appears to be in the mix.

https://newsroom.calgary.ca/police-s...amage-suspect/

Contrary to what the King of Torts has to say, property damage is a thing. That's why there are lawyers who specialize in this type of thing and why law enforcement investigates it with such regularity.

I'm glad you acknowledge the issue of liability, and the concept of intent. Without intent it is difficult to establish that a law was broken. A golfer - unless a real dick - does not have intent on hitting a house and can clearly make the argument that there was no intent. Unless the house is directly in line, the golfer has no intent of hitting the structure or in its direction, meaning this this is an act of god or good old LOFT.

I'm afraid that you are well off the mark (like an errant drive headed for an adjacent backyard). Generally speaking, police investigate criminal (and to a lesser extent) some regulatory offences. They do not investigate tortious conduct. When police investigate "property damage" complaints, it is generally to investigate the criminal code offence of mischief (but sometimes other criminal code offences: arson etc.). It has nothing to do with civil liability (although restitution orders are handy shortcuts around the long, tortuous path of civil litigation [especially for small amounts].

Also I would note that criminal code offences require mens rea (for example, intent) to be proven. Torts do not. [EDIT: Well, this is a bit of a simplification. Some torts do have a mental element. Whatever.]