| Case name: |
Caine v. Surrey (District) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Cotton, Arthur F. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Surrey (District) |
|
Appellant |
| |
Caine, George S. |
|
Respondent |
| |
Stevenson |
|
Other |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Macdonald, James Alexander |
C.J.A. |
| |
Martin, Archer Evans Stringer |
J.A. |
| |
McPhillips, Albert Edward |
J.A. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
McQuarrie, W.G. |
|
Appellant |
| |
Tupper, Sir Charles Hibbert |
|
Appellant |
| |
Taylor, Sidney S. |
|
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Decision: |
Appeal by the District of Surrey from an order whereby the Respondent was granted an injunction restraining the District from resuming land for road purposes. The District had adopted a by-law pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.B.C. 1914, c. 52, that purported to authorize resumption of a portion of the Respondent's land. However, it was held that the Act did not permit a municipal government to resume land in use as a garden. The portion of the Respondent's property in question was in use as a garden and the exemption applied. The appeal was dismissed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ExLaw citation: |
[1920] EXLAW 3 |
|
| Parallel citations: |
[1920] B.C.J. No. 86 |
| |
(1920) 28 B.C.R. 321 |
| |
[1920] 2 W.W.R. 681 |
|
|
|
