Expropriation Law Centre




Access Property Services


Free Case Law
Record no. 560
Case name: Prince Edward Island (Attorney General) v. Thompson
Date: 1999-03-03
Jurisdiction: Canada - Prince Edward Island
Court: Supreme Court - Trial Division
Registry: [Subscribers only]
File: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
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 Title
Webber, Linda K. J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Kell, Laura A.   Applicant
  Langille, Roger B.   Applicant
Taking type/date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Application to court 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 abandoned in 1989. 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.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  [2002] EXLAW 1 P.E. S.C.T.D. 2002-07-05
  [2003] EXLAW 18 P.E. S.C.A.D. 2003-06-23
Neutral citation:  
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
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


© 2020 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: April 1, 2020