Shannon et al. v. Frank George's Island Investments Ltd. et al., 2016 NSCA 24
| Judge | Bryson, Scanlan and Van den Eynden, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada) |
| Case Date | April 04, 2016 |
| Jurisdiction | Nova Scotia |
| Citations | 2016 NSCA 24;(2016), 373 N.S.R.(2d) 123 (CA) |
Shannon v. Frank George's Island (2016), 373 N.S.R.(2d) 123 (CA);
1175 A.P.R. 123
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.017
Frank George's Island Investments Limited, Anton and Gabriele Viehbeck, Seabright Holdings Limited and Paul Pleau (appellants) v. Joel Shannon, David and Dinah Grace, Gower Holdings Limited (respondents) and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia (intervenor)
(CA 441130; 2016 NSCA 24)
Indexed As: Shannon et al. v. Frank George's Island Investments Ltd. et al.
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Bryson, Scanlan and Van den Eynden, JJ.A.
April 4, 2016.
Summary:
At issue in this matter (application) was whether part of a road was a right of way or a public road. The applicants sought to prevent the respondents from using the right of way for commercial purposes. The respondents claimed the lane was a public road over which they could transfer goods and persons.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported 357 N.S.R.(2d) 168; 1127 A.P.R. 168, determined that the road was private. The court also dealt with an estoppel issue, holding that estoppel did not apply in this case. The respondents appealed.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Highways - Topic 14
General - Definitions - Public highway or road - The applicants sought to prevent the respondents from using a lane they claimed to be a right of way for commercial purposes - The respondents claimed the lane was a public road over which they could transfer goods and persons - An applications judge determined that the portion of the road in issue was private - The respondents did not meet the burden of proving that the road in question was public (i.e., they did not prove their case to the analogous preponderance of probabilities) - The respondents appealed, arguing that the trial judge misapplied the standard of proof, reversed the onus of proof, and failed to apply the correct legal test in determining the public road issue or ignored crucial evidence when applying the test - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rejected the respondents' arguments and dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 7 to 24.
Counsel:
Robert H. Pineo and Jeremy P. Smith, for the appellants;
Douglas Tupper, Q.C., and Victoria Crosbie, for the respondents;
Sheldon Choo, for the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
This appeal was heard on April 4, 2016, in Halifax, N.S., before Bryson, Scanlan and Van den Eynden, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The following appeal was dismissed on April 4, 2016, with written reasons released for the court by Bryson, J.A., on April 11, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. St. Mary’s (Municipality),
...date for this wording in s. 11(1)(f) of the PHA has been determined to be 1919; Frank George’s Island Investments Ltd v. Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24 at paras. 17–18. While the Laneway was shown on a plan from the 1900s, there was nothing on the plan to indicate if it was private or ......
-
St. Mary’s (Municipality) v. Cook, 2019 NSSC 374
...public highway” as of 1919 when the first public highways legislation came into effect (Frank George’s Island Investments Ltd v Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24, at paras 17 - [31] Applying these principles to the facts of this case, I conclude that: 1. The Laneway was a “street” as of 1998 and theref......
-
Cook v. St. Mary’s (Municipality),
...date for this wording in s. 11(1)(f) of the PHA has been determined to be 1919; Frank George’s Island Investments Ltd v. Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24 at paras. 17–18. While the Laneway was shown on a plan from the 1900s, there was nothing on the plan to indicate if it was private or ......
-
St. Mary’s (Municipality) v. Cook, 2019 NSSC 374
...public highway” as of 1919 when the first public highways legislation came into effect (Frank George’s Island Investments Ltd v Shannon, 2016 NSCA 24, at paras 17 - [31] Applying these principles to the facts of this case, I conclude that: 1. The Laneway was a “street” as of 1998 and theref......