Expropriation Law Centre


You are here: Home > Cases


Cohen Highley LLP


Free Case Law
Record no. 1083
Case name: Hope v. Surrey (District)
Date: 1914-09-24
Jurisdiction: Canada - British Columbia
Court: Supreme Court
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Hope   Claimant
  Surrey (District)   Authority
  Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company   Authority
Before: Decision maker Title
Clement, William Henry Pope J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Macdonald, M.A.   Claimant
  MacNeill, Albert Howard   Authority
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Application to court by property owners for an injunction and damages and for a declaration establishing ownership of an eight-foot wide strip of land.

The owners had erected a fence along what they believed to be the south property line of their property, adjacent to a public highway. However, the municipality removed the fence one year later, acting in the belief that the fence had been placed within the public highway.

It was held that a 33 foot wide public highway had been established previously pursuant to an agreement between the predecessor in title of the property owners and the municipality notwithstanding that the expropriation procedure contained in the Highway Act, R.S.B.C. 1911, c. 99, had not been followed. The fence was located within this highway right of way. However, it was also held that the municipality did not have jurisdiction to remove obstructions from the highway and had trespassed in doing so.

The municipality was ordered to repeal the by-law authorizing establishment of the highway as the by-law contained an incorrect legal description. It was further ordered that registration of the by-law in the Land Registry office be cancelled. The property owners were awarded damages for trespass and costs against the municipality for wrongful removal of the fence. The claims brought against the railway company were dismissed.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
Neutral citation:  
ExLaw citation: [1914] EXLAW 2
Parallel citations: [1914] B.C.J. No. 128
  (1914) 20 B.C.R. 434
  (1914) 20 D.L.R. 540
Reasons: [Subscribers only]
Digests contain original content produced by ExLaw and copyright in this content is held by Dicta Legal Services Ltd. (dba Expropriation Law Centre). Reasons for decision are the text of original decisions released by the court or tribunal and edited for accuracy where required. No copyright is claimed for these materials.
Join the Mailing List
Enter your name and email address below:


Online Subscription
Online Subscription Service sign-up
Online Subscription Service log-in