Banville et al. v. White, (2002) 167 B.C.A.C. 86 (CA)
Judge | Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Low, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
Case Date | April 16, 2002 |
Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
Citations | (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 86 (CA);2002 BCCA 239 |
Banville v. White (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 86 (CA);
274 W.A.C. 86
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.039
Marc Andre Banville and Joan Ann Fisher-Banville (appellants/plaintiffs) v. Frank Ellison White and Heather Louise White (respondents/defendants)
Frank Ellison White and Heather Louise White (respondents/plaintiffs) v. Marc Andre Banville and Joan Ann Fisher-Banville (appellants/defendants)
(CA28538; 2002 BCCA 239)
Indexed As: Banville et al. v. White
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Low, JJ.A.
April 16, 2002.
Summary:
The owners of adjacent lots shared a common private driveway. Both lots were formerly included in one parcel. When the owners of the original parcel subdivided, they granted an easement over lot 1 in favour of lot 2, to allow driveway access to both properties. Similarly, the original owners granted a reciprocal easement over lot 2 in favour of lot 1. Over the years, the common boundary of lots 1 and 2 was modified twice. The second boundary modification had the effect of placing part of the right-of-way and easement over lot 1 within the boundaries of lot 2. To the south and west of that second boundary modification was a "turnaround" area located on lot 2 outside the easement over lot 1. The present owners of lot 1 (the Banvilles) and of lot 2 (the Whites) became involved in a dispute about the "turnaround". The Whites sought modification of the easement granted in their favour to include the turnaround, pursuant to s. 35(2) of the Property Law Act. In the alternative, the Whites sought rectification of the easement. The second area of dispute was over the use of the driveway itself. The Banvilles objected to the placement by the Whites of portable curbs and to the use of the driveway by the Whites for parking.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 628, granted an order modifying the easement to include the turnaround, pursuant to s. 35(2). The court ruled that parking was permitted within the area covered by the easement, so long as it did not obstruct passage on the driveway or cause damage to the easement area. The court further ruled that the installation of portable curbs on the easement was unobjectionable, as long as they did not obstruct the Banvilles' right to pass and repass by motor vehicle or otherwise. See also [2001] B.C.T.C. Uned. 282, re trial costs. The Banvilles appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.
Deeds and Documents - Topic 5051
Rectification - When available - General - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, J.A., stated that s. 31 of the Property Law Act (and its current equivalent, s. 35), did not give the power of rectification; rectification was an equitable remedy - See paragraph 36.
Deeds and Documents - Topic 5055
Rectification - When available - Intention of parties - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, C.J.B.C., stated that in order to make a successful claim for rectification, it was necessary to show there was a common intention not reflected in the conveyance or contract as actually produced - However, the intention did not have to be shown in express words - See paragraph 29.
Deeds and Documents - Topic 5181
Rectification - Proof and evidence - Standard of proof - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, C.J.B.C., stated that the standard of proof required for rectification was "very clear and convincing proof" - See paragraph 29.
Real Property - Topic 7068
Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Creation by prescription - Bars (permission, etc.) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Finch, C.J.B.C., noted that the acquisition of property rights by prescription was abolished by s. 24 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250 - See paragraph 27.
Real Property - Topic 7172
Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Variation of easements - By court - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that s. 35 of the Property Law Act did not permit modification of an easement against the interests of the servient tenant - See paragraphs 18 to 26, 56.
Real Property - Topic 7298
Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Extent of right granted - To dwellings - The owners of adjacent lots shared a common private driveway - Both lots were formerly included in one parcel - When the owners of the original parcel subdivided, they granted an easement over lot 1 in favour of lot 2, to allow driveway access to both properties - Similarly, the original owners granted a reciprocal easement over lot 2 in favour of lot 1 - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the easement permitted temporary stopping on the easement, but not parking or the placement of portable curbs - See paragraphs 43 to 54, 56.
Cases Noticed:
Firman v. Michaleski, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2696 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].
Sidhu v. Chandra et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 630 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].
Butlin's S.T., Re, [1976] Ch. 251, refd to. [para. 29].
McQuiggan v. Sharp, [1984] B.C.J. No. 1054 (S.C.), consd. [para. 30].
Bank of Montreal v. Vancouver Professional Soccer Ltd., [1987] B.C.J. No. 1326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].
Shaughnessy Estates v. Vancouver (City) (1983), 40 B.C.L.R. 389 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].
Hawkes Estate v. Silver Campsites Ltd. et al. (1991), 79 D.L.R.(4th) 677 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
Gasparin et al. v. Arduini, [1995] B.C.J. No. 234 (C.A.), consd. [para. 35].
Brundrett et al. v. Muckle et al., [1997] B.C.A.C. Uned. 118 (C.A.), consd. [para. 45].
Bossler v. Burton, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1614 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].
Hankey v. Hankey, [1994] B.C.J. No. 71 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].
Statutes Noticed:
Property Law Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 377, sect. 35 [para. 18].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Sara, Colin, Boundaries and Easements (2nd Ed. 1996), generally [para. 29]; pp. 313, 315, 330 [para. 48].
Counsel:
S.E. Jenko, for the appellants;
D.L. Armstrong, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard at Victoria, British Columbia, on January 7, 2002, by Finch, C.J.B.C., Ryan and Low, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
The decision of the court was delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 16, 2002, and the following opinions were filed:
Finch, C.J.B.C., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 1 to 55;
Ryan, J.A. (Low, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 56 to 65.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
0731431 B.C. Ltd. v. Panorama Parkview Homes Ltd.,
...of a Land Title Act employing a Torrens System of title do not oust the equitable jurisdiction of the Court (see also Bainville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239). [408] In these proceedings, the claim against the registered owners of the subdivided lots is based on allegations that they either commi......
-
Entwistle v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3242, 2019 BCSC 1311
...Land Title Act. [37] In Arbutus Bay, the court rectified an easement registered against the plaintiff’s property. In Banville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239, the court expressly found that it had the jurisdiction to order rectification of a registered easement although the majority was of the view......
-
NBC Holdings Ltd. v. Aarts Nursery Ltd.,
...is available against the interests of the servient party (NBC) on the application of the dominant party (Aarts): Banville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239. [48] On this appeal, Aarts argues that NBC knew and agreed that a “modification” of the Easement was a possibility and that it was “on the table......
-
Golden Valley Enterprises Ltd. v. B.P.Y.A. 1290 Holdings Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1213
...does not have to be in express words. The standard of proof required is "very clear and convincing proof": Banville v. White , 2002 BCCA 239 at para. 29. The authorities caution that the standard of proof is a stringent one because of the danger of imposing on a party a contract w......
-
0731431 B.C. Ltd. v. Panorama Parkview Homes Ltd.,
...of a Land Title Act employing a Torrens System of title do not oust the equitable jurisdiction of the Court (see also Bainville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239). [408] In these proceedings, the claim against the registered owners of the subdivided lots is based on allegations that they either commi......
-
Entwistle v. The Owners, Strata Plan EPS 3242, 2019 BCSC 1311
...Land Title Act. [37] In Arbutus Bay, the court rectified an easement registered against the plaintiff’s property. In Banville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239, the court expressly found that it had the jurisdiction to order rectification of a registered easement although the majority was of the view......
-
NBC Holdings Ltd. v. Aarts Nursery Ltd.,
...is available against the interests of the servient party (NBC) on the application of the dominant party (Aarts): Banville v. White, 2002 BCCA 239. [48] On this appeal, Aarts argues that NBC knew and agreed that a “modification” of the Easement was a possibility and that it was “on the table......
-
Golden Valley Enterprises Ltd. v. B.P.Y.A. 1290 Holdings Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1213
...does not have to be in express words. The standard of proof required is "very clear and convincing proof": Banville v. White , 2002 BCCA 239 at para. 29. The authorities caution that the standard of proof is a stringent one because of the danger of imposing on a party a contract w......