| Case name: |
Hope v. Surrey (District) |
|
|
|
| Jurisdiction: |
Canada - British Columbia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parties: |
Name |
|
Appearing as |
| |
Hope |
|
Claimant |
| |
Surrey (District) |
|
Authority |
| |
Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company |
|
Authority |
|
| Before: |
Decision maker |
Designation |
|
Clement, William Henry Pope |
J. |
|
| Lawyers: |
Name |
|
Appearing for |
| |
Macdonald, M.A. |
|
Claimant |
| |
MacNeill, Albert Howard |
|
Authority |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Related decisions: |
|
|
|
| |
Earlier |
| |
| |
Later |
| |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
|
