link to Expropriation Law Centre home page

Cases



Menu
Home
News
Events
Statutes
Cases
Articles
Reviews
Photos
Statistics
Publications
Professional Directory
Links

Advertisement

Cohen Highley LLP

Advertisement


Free Case Law
[Back] DECISION DIGEST  
Record no. 561
Case name: Thompson v. Prince Edward Island (Attorney General)
Date: 2002-07-05
Jurisdiction: Canada - Prince Edward Island
Court: Supreme Court - Trial Division
Release registry: [Subscribers only]
Court file: [Subscribers only]
Order no.: [Subscribers only]
Parties: Name   Appearing as
  Boswall, Ivan   Plaintiff
  Boswall, Lucille   Plaintiff
  Thompson, Donald   Plaintiff
  Thompson, Heather   Plaintiff
  Prince Edward Island (Attorney General)   Defendant
Before: Decision maker Designation
Matheson, Jacqueline R. J.
Lawyers: Name   Appearing for
  Diamond, John R.   Plaintiff
  DeMone, Ruth M.   Defendant
Experts:  
Taking type: [Subscribers only]
Valuation date: [Subscribers only]
Case elements: [Subscribers only]
Decision: Application by several property owners for a declaration. The Plaintiffs owned and operated farms adjacent to and intersected by the Confederation Trail, a former CN Railway right of way. The right of way had originally been acquired by the Province through expropriation proceedings in 1874. Title transferred to Canada by the 1873 Terms of Union. However, after rail operations formally ceased in 1989, the Province reacquired title and converted the right of way to a public trail pursuant to the Trails Act, S.P.E.I. 1994, c. 62.

In previous proceedings, an injunction was obtained by the Province to prevent the plaintiffs and others from obstructing the Confederation Trail.

In this proceeding, the Plaintiffs sought several declarations to determine the extent to which the Province was responsible for fencing, farm crossings and maintenance and supervision of the right of way where it lay adjacent to the properties of the Plaintiffs. One of the issues was whether the statutory requirements applicable to railway operations were still applicable even though rail operations had ceased. Several declarations were granted and costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs.
Comment: [Subscribers only]
Statute references: [Subscribers only]
Case references: [Subscribers only]
Related decisions:      
  Earlier
  [1999] EXLAW 1 P.E. S.C.T.D. 1999-03-03
  Later
  [2003] EXLAW 18 P.E. S.C.A.D. 2003-06-23
Neutral citation: 2002 PESCTD 45
ExLaw citation: [2002] EXLAW 1
Parallel citations: (2002) 115 A.C.W.S. (3d) 65
  (2002) 644 A.P.R. 97
  (2002) 215 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 97
  [2002] P.E.I.J. No. 60
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:
Name:

Email:


Subscribe 
Unsubscribe 

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

Advertisement


© 2024 Dicta Legal Services Ltd.
Page last updated: April 21, 2024