Richards and Slack v. Gaklis and Lakelands Blueberries Ltd., (1984) 63 N.S.R.(2d) 230 (TD)

• Judge: Clarke, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 17, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 230 (TD)

Richards v. Gaklis (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 230 (TD);

    141 A.P.R. 230

MLB headnote and full text

Richards and Slack v. Gaklis and Lakelands Blueberries Limited

(1983 S.T. No. 01847)

Indexed As: Richards and Slack v. Gaklis and Lakelands Blueberries Ltd.

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Trial Division

Clarke, J.

April 17, 1984.

Summary:

The plaintiffs brought an action for a determination of the boundary between their land and that of the defendants and for damages for trespassing.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the action in part. The court found that the boundary was that claimed by the plaintiffs but that the defendants had adversely possessed part of the disputed land for over twenty years, barring the plaintiffs' action. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs for timber taken by the defendants from their land not adversely possessed by the defendants.

Real Property - Topic 4741

Title - Boundaries - Determination of - General - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, set out the approach to the determination of a boundary referred to unclearly in a deed and stated a priority list of considerations - See paragraph 12.

Real Property - Topic 4749

Title - Boundaries - Determination of - By acreage stated in deed - A deed referred to a lot of land as being 40 acres more or less - The boundary claimed by the plaintiffs resulted in a lot of 43.5 acres - The boundary claimed by the defendants resulted in a lot of 51.6 acres - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, took into account the stated acreage in the deed in choosing the plaintiffs' boundary - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Real Property - Topic 4780

Title - Boundaries - Determination of - Fences and stone walls - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, in establishing the boundary between two properties considered an old stone fence, the selection of which as the boundary enabled the rest of the description in the deed to be followed without trouble - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Real Property - Topic 5601

Title - Extinguishment - Limitation of actions - Adverse possession - Defined - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, set out the nature and character of possession necessary to extinguish title - See paragraph 32.

Real Property - Topic 5630

Title - Extinguishment - Limitation of actions - Possession - General principle - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, set out the general principles of establishing title by adverse possession - See paragraphs 18 to 20.

Real Property - Topic 5631

Title - Extinguishment - Limitation of actions - Adverse possession - Possession - Acts constituting - Commercial blueberry growing - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the cultivation of blueberries on land for commercial purposes by burning and picking on alternate years was sufficient possession to extinguish title after 20 years - See paragraphs 17 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Sanderson v. Farmer (1981), 31 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 298; 87 A.P.R. 298, appld. [para. 14].

Brewer v. Gillis (1982), 53 N.S.R.(2d) 656; 109 A.P.R. 656, appld. [para. 19].

MacDonald and MacDonald v. Blakeney's Estate (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 589; 71 A.P.R. 589, appld. [para. 20].

Zinck v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia et al. (1979), 34 N.S.R.(2d) 12; 59 A.P.R. 12, appld. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 168, sect. 9, sect. 21 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (Ont.) (3rd Ed.), vol. 3, Title 19, p. 16 [para. 12].

Counsel:

John T. Rafferty and Chris Flavrage, A/C, for the plaintiffs;

Ross B. Archibald, Q.C., and Jerome Langille, for the defendants.

This case was heard on March 20-23, 1984, at Truro, N.S., before Clarke, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on April 17, 1984: