Dainow et al. v. Tait et al.

JurisdictionBritish Columbia
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
JudgeCrawford, J.
Citation2003 BCSC 1040,[2003] B.C.T.C. 1040 (SC)
Date12 May 2003

Dainow v. Tait, [2003] B.C.T.C. 1040 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.T.C. TBEd. AU.011

Rob Dainow and Cheryl Amundsen (plaintiffs/petitioners) v. Lynda Tait and Keith Dale (defendants/respondents)

(S75954; S74452; 2003 BCSC 1040)

Indexed As: Dainow et al. v. Tait et al.

British Columbia Supreme Court

New Westminster

Crawford, J.

July 4, 2003.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Real Property - Topic 7215

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Interference or obstruction - Obstruction of right of way - See paragraphs 1 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Pettey v. Parsons, [1914] 2 Ch. 653, refd to. [para. 22].

Nordin v. Faridi et al. (1996), 69 B.C.A.C. 280; 113 W.A.C. 280 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Banville et al. v. White (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 86; 274 W.A.C. 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Lund et al. v. Miles Farm Ltd. et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 275 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Spencer's Stores Ltd. v. Katz, [1980] B.C.J. No. 895, refd to. [para. 23].

Seidler v. Barker, [1996] B.C.J. No. 2428 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Firman v. Michaleski, [1995] B.C.J. No. 2696 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Somra Brothers Enterprises Ltd. v. Coquihalla Motor Inn Ltd., [1996] B.C.J. No. 574 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Hankey v. Hankey, [1994] B.C.J. No. 71 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Drumonde v. Moniz (1997), 105 O.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lewis v. Wakeling (1923), 54 O.L.R. 647 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

MacKenzie v. Matthews et al. (1998), 85 O.T.C. 226 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 25].

Clifford v. Hoare (1874), L.R. 9 C.P. 362 (U.K.), refd to. [para. 26].

Cohen v. Boone (1921), 64 D.L.R. 429 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Geoghegan v. Henry, [1922] 2 K.B. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

Devaney v. McNab (1921), 51 O.L.R. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Riis v. Wallman, [1987] O.J. No. 1726 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

Miller et al. v. MacLean et al. (1972), 7 N.S.R.(2d) 371 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

W.D. Mussio, for the plaintiffs/petitioners;

A. Sweezey, for the defendants/respondents.

This case was heard on May 12, 2003, before Crawford, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on July 4, 2003.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
4 practice notes
  • Beyer v. Clarke
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 13, 2010
    ...judgments of this court in Moyer v. Mortensen , 2008 BCSC 485; Lund v. Miles Farm Limited , [2002] B.C.J. No. 1383; and Dainow v. Tait , 2003 BCSC 1040. [17] The respondents submit that their fencing of Area One for safety purposes, and to keep their dog from straying, is ancillary to the u......
  • Fisher v. Bosse et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 28, 2006
    ...I have considered and applied Lewis v. Wakeling (1923), 54 O.L.R. 647 (C.A.) as well as Dainow v. Tait (2003), R.P.R. (4th) 309, 2003 BCSC 1040, in determining reasonable access in light of the entirety of the evidence. [106] Other than the reasonably necessary present and possible future a......
  • Duncan v. Sherman et al.
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • December 15, 2005
    ...]. Cases Noticed: Lewis v. Wakeling (1923), 54 O.L.R. 647 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11]. Dainow et al. v. Tait et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1040; 2003 BCSC 1040, refd to. [para. Marquest Industries Ltd. v. Willows Poultry Farms Ltd. (1968), 1 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14]. Langley L......
  • Gardiner v. Robinson
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 9, 2006
    ...that it will be a substantial obstruction to his easement. That principle was quoted with approval by Crawford J. in Dainow v. Tait , 2003 BCSC 1040. [24] In Banville v. White , 2002 BCCA 239, Finch C.J.B.C. stated at para. 51: ... while the easement constitutes a charge on the servient ten......
4 cases
  • Beyer v. Clarke
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 13, 2010
    ...judgments of this court in Moyer v. Mortensen , 2008 BCSC 485; Lund v. Miles Farm Limited , [2002] B.C.J. No. 1383; and Dainow v. Tait , 2003 BCSC 1040. [17] The respondents submit that their fencing of Area One for safety purposes, and to keep their dog from straying, is ancillary to the u......
  • Fisher v. Bosse et al.
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • April 28, 2006
    ...I have considered and applied Lewis v. Wakeling (1923), 54 O.L.R. 647 (C.A.) as well as Dainow v. Tait (2003), R.P.R. (4th) 309, 2003 BCSC 1040, in determining reasonable access in light of the entirety of the evidence. [106] Other than the reasonably necessary present and possible future a......
  • Duncan v. Sherman et al.
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • December 15, 2005
    ...]. Cases Noticed: Lewis v. Wakeling (1923), 54 O.L.R. 647 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11]. Dainow et al. v. Tait et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1040; 2003 BCSC 1040, refd to. [para. Marquest Industries Ltd. v. Willows Poultry Farms Ltd. (1968), 1 D.L.R.(3d) 513 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14]. Langley L......
  • Gardiner v. Robinson
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 9, 2006
    ...that it will be a substantial obstruction to his easement. That principle was quoted with approval by Crawford J. in Dainow v. Tait , 2003 BCSC 1040. [24] In Banville v. White , 2002 BCCA 239, Finch C.J.B.C. stated at para. 51: ... while the easement constitutes a charge on the servient ten......