References: 1913 CanLII 8 (SCC), 48 SCR 57
Links: Canlii
Coram: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick CJ and Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ
Ratio Supreme Court of Canada – S. brought action against P. for trespass on a strip of land called ‘Ancroft Place’ which he claimed as his property and asked for damages and an injunction. ‘Ancroft Place’ was a cul-de-sac running east from Sherbourne Street, and the defence to the action was that it was a public street or, if not, that P. had a right of way over it either by grant or user. On the trial it was shewn that the original owners had conveyed the lots to the east and south of ‘Ancroft Place’ to different parties, each deed describing it as a street and giving a right of way over it to the grantee. The deeds to P.’s predecessors in title did not give him a similar right of way, but some of these conveyances described it as a street. The deed to one of the predecessors in title of S. had a plan annexed shewing ‘Ancroft Place’ as a street fifty feet wide and the grantee was given the right to register said plan. The evidence also established that for 22 years before the action ‘Ancroft Place’ had been entered in the assessment rolls as a public street and had not been assessed for taxes and that the city had placed a gas lamp on the end; also, that for over twenty years it had been used by the owners of the lots to the south and east, and from time to time by the owner on the north side, as a means of access to, and egress from, their respective properties. In 1909 the fee in the land in dispute was conveyed to S. who had become owner of the lots to the east and south.
Held, Idington J. dissenting, Duff J. expressing no opinion, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that the land had been dedicated to the public, and accepted by the municipality as a street.
Held, further, Idington and Duff JJ. dissenting, that the land was not a ‘way, easement or appurtenance’ to the lot to the north ‘held, used, occupied and enjoyed, or taken or known, as part and parcel thereof’ within the meaning of sec. 12 of ‘The Law and Transfer of Property Act,’ R.S.O., [1897] ch. 119.
Held, also, that, P. had not acquired a right-of-way by a grant implied from the terms of the deeds of the adjoining lots, Duff J. dissenting; nor by prescription, Duff J. expressing no opinion.
This case cites:
- Cited – Attorney-General -v- Antrobus ChD ([1905] 2 Ch 188)
The owner of Stonehenge had enclosed the monument by fencing for its protection. The Attorney-General wished to remove the fencing in order to keep the place open so that the public could visit it.
Held: The court rejected a suggestion that . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 15-May-16
Ref: 540228