| Case name: |
Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) v. Thompson |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - Prince Edward Island |
|
| Court: |
Supreme Court - Trial Division |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) |
|
Applicant |
| |
Boswall, Ivan |
|
Respondent |
| |
Boswall, Lucille |
|
Respondent |
| |
Doran, John |
|
Respondent |
| |
Jenkins, Douglas |
|
Respondent |
| |
McNally, James |
|
Respondent |
| |
McNally, Kenneth |
|
Respondent |
| |
Thompson, Donald |
|
Respondent |
| |
Thompson, Heather |
|
Respondent |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Webber, Linda K. |
J. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Kell, Laura A. |
|
Applicant |
| |
Langille, Roger B. |
|
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Application by the Province for a permanent injunction to prevent the obstruction of a former railway right of way. The right of way had been acquired by the Province by expropriation in 1874 and later transferred to Canada as contemplated by the 1873 Terms of Union. Rail operations were conducted by the Canadian National Railway until 1989 when all lines were formally abandoned. After abandonment, Canada transferred title to the CNR which sold it to the Province in 1994. The Province began to convert the right of way to a recreational trail known as the Confederation Trail. The Respondents were adjacent property owners who claimed a reversionary interest in the right of way as a result of the abandonment and challenged the Province's title. The Respondents also had concerns about the increased burden placed on them to protect their property from users of the proposed trail.
The court found that the Province had acquired a fee simple title to the right of way at the time of expropriation in 1874 and that the adjacent property owners did not have any reversionary rights to the property upon abandonment of rail operations. It also found that there was some doubt about the Province's current title but nevertheless the Province had sufficient interest to bring the injunction application.
An injunction was granted against some of the Respondents. No costs were awarded. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1999] EXLAW 1 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
(1999) 530 A.P.R. 22 |
| |
(1999) 36 C.P.C. (4th) 126 |
| |
(1999) 173 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 22 |
| |
[1999] P.E.I.J. No. 25 |
|
|
|
