C, (2000) 232 N.B.R.(2d) 343 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Rice, Ryan and Larlee, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 NBCA 52
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Subject Matter: REAL PROPERTY,ESTOPPEL
• Citation: (2000), 232 N.B.R.(2d) 343 (CA),2000 NBCA 52
• Date: 27 November 2000

Côté v. Desjardins (2000), 232 N.B.R.(2d) 343 (CA);

    232 R.N.-B.(2e) 343; 598 A.P.R. 343

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2000] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.002

Ralph Côté (respondent/appellant) v. Réginald Desjardins and Jeannelle Desjardins (applicants/respondents)

(254/99/CA; 2000 NBCA 52)

Indexed As: Côté v. Desjardins

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Rice, Ryan and Larlee, JJ.A.

November 27, 2000.

Summary:

Côté owned Lot 34. The Desjardins owned contiguous Lot 35. There was a long-standing disagreement between the parties over the location of the boundaries between the two lots. The Desjardins invoked adverse possession and the Quieting of Titles Act in support of an application for a certificate of title to Lot 35 and a 30-foot strip of land on Lot 34.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 179 N.B.R.(2d) 384; 455 A.P.R. 384, allowed the application. Côté appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 179 N.B.R.(2d) 378; 455 A.P.R. 378, allowed the appeal. The Desjardins then made application to confirm the location of the boundaries, pursuant to s. 6 of the Boundaries Confirmation Act. Côté opposed the application, arguing res judicata.

An arbitrator rejected the res judicata argument and allowed the application by the Desjardins; Côté appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 217 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 555 A.P.R. 1, dismissed the appeal. Côté appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, Ryan, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Real Property - Topic 4700 ].

Real Property - Topic 4700

Title - Boundaries - Determination of boundaries - The parties disputed the location of the boundaries between their two lots, respectively lot 34 and lot 35 - The applicants, who owned lot 35, invoked adverse possession and were unsuccessful in legally obtaining a certificate of title to lot 35 and a 30-foot strip of land on lot 34 - The applicants then made application to confirm the location of the boundaries, pursuant to s. 6 of the Boundaries Confirmation Act - The respondent opposed the application, invoking res judicata - An arbitrator rejected this argument, allowed the application and determined the location of the boundaries - The respondent appealed - The trial judge dismissed the appeal - The judge held that the arbitrator had correctly rejected the res judicata argument because the issue of the boundaries had not been dealt with in the other proceedings - Furthermore, the arbitrator's decision with respect to the boundaries was not unreasonable - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Cases Noticed:

Bullen, Re (1971), 21 D.L.R.(3d) 628 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 8].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 11].

Desrosiers v. Banque Nationale du Canada (1998), 201 N.B.R.(2d) 103; 514 A.P.R. 103 (C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

Landry v. Landry (1991), 117 N.B.R.(2d) 181; 295 A.P.R. 181 (C.A.), consd. [para. 16].

Fletcher v. Storoschuk et al. (1981), 128 D.L.R.(3d) 59 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Masidon Investments Ltd. et al. v. Ham (1984), 2 O.A.C. 147; 45 O.R.(2d) 563 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Farwell v. R., [1893] 22 S.C.R. 553, consd. [para. 34].

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. Rayner and Keeler, [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

McCain et al. v. McCain Foods Group Inc. et al. (1995), 157 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 404 A.P.R. 321 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Glew v. Westfield (Village) (1997), 189 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 482 A.P.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

MacNeill v. Fero Waste & Recycling Inc. et al. (2000), 231 N.B.R.(2d) 191; 597 A.P.R. 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Doering v. Grandview (Town), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; 7 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 41].

Comeau et al. v. Breau et al. (1994), 145 N.B.R.(2d) 329; 372 A.P.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Hoque v. Montreal Trust Co. et al. (1997), 162 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 485 A.P.R. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Melcor Developments Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) and Development Officer of City of Edmonton (1982), 37 A.R. 532 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hoystead v. Taxation Commissioner, [1926] A.C. 155 (P.C.), consd. [par. 43].

Bigelow v. Staley (1864), 14 U.C.C.P. 276, refd to. [para. 43].

Law v. Hansen, [1895] 25 S.C.R. 69, refd to. [para. 43].

Danyluk v. Toshach (1970), 72 W.W.R.(N.S.) 517 (Alb. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Hughes v. Prince Edward Island (Minister of Health and Social Services) (No. 2) (1993), 111 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 259; 348 A.P.R. 259 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Henderson v. Henderson (1843), 3 Hare 100; 67 E.R. 313, refd to. [para. 43].

Cayouette et al. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (2000), 227 N.B.R.(2d) 283; 583 A.P.R. 283 (C.A.), consd. [para. 43].

Statutes Noticed:

Boundaries Confirmation Act, S.N.B. 1994, c. B-7.2, sect. 6(1) [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lange, Donald J., The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (2000), pp. 1-4 [para. 34]; 12-19 [para. 37]; 29, 343-367 [para. 34]; 375-379 [para. 40].

New Brunswick, Legislative Assembly, Journal of debates (Hansard), April 8, 1994 [para. 26].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 990-991 [para. 13].

Counsel:

Paul A. Bertrand, for the appellant;

Jean-Paul Ouellette, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on February 15, 2000, by Rice, Ryan and Larlee, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on November 27, 2000, and the following reasons were filed:

Larlee, J.A. (Rice, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 21;

Ryan, J.A. (dissenting) - see paragraphs 22 to 45.