Smith v. Beals Estate et al., (2015) 366 N.S.R.(2d) 100 (CA)
|Judge:||MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Nova Scotia Court of Appeal|
|Case Date:||September 28, 2015|
|Citations:||(2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 100 (CA);2015 NSCA 93|
Smith v. Beals Estate (2015), 366 N.S.R.(2d) 100 (CA);
1154 A.P.R. 100
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.028
Carl David Smith (appellant) v. Estate of Ronald Lester Beals, Georgina Peggy Beals, Karen Grant Beals and Robert Corey Grant (respondents)
(CA 427335; 2015 NSCA 93)
Indexed As: Smith v. Beals Estate et al.
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A.
October 15, 2015.
Smith brought a claim alleging that a Quit Claim Deed granted to Lester Ronald Beals in April 1991 should be declared invalid, ineffective and void.
The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at  N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 86, dismissed the action. Smith appealed.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Equity - Topic 4626
Election - When applicable - Selection between alternative but inconsistent rights - Smith brought a claim alleging that a Quit Claim Deed granted to Lester Ronald Beals in April 1991 should be declared invalid, ineffective and void - Justice Boudreau dismissed the action - Smith appealed - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Many parties, including Smith, had relied on the 1991 deed because they had accepted deeds to these lands from Lester Beals - The court stated that "In his closing submissions to Justice Boudreau, Mr. Smith said he did not want the 1991 deed 'totally nullified', in part because he had received a lot himself from Lester Beals. Rather he wanted the deed to be declared invalid with respect to some remaining lands now held by Lester Beals' heirs (the respondents). He also wanted a grant of three acres and the former homestead for himself from the remaining lands. Mr. Smith cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that the deed he received from Lester Beals is valid, while the deed to Lester Beals is not. This is a logical inconsistency which the law sometimes calls 'election'" - The court also could not reconsider Justice Boudreau's treatment of the evidence and overturn his decision unless he made a "palpable and overriding error" - Nothing in the record suggested that Justice Boudreau made any such errors.
R. v. Palmer,  1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 4].
Lissenden v. C.A.V. Bosch Ltd.,  A.C. 412 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].
Children's Aid Society of Cape Breton-Victoria v. A.M. (2005), 232 N.S.R.(2d) 121; 737 A.P.R. 121; 2005 NSCA 58, refd to. [para. 13].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Halsbury's Laws of Canada, Equitable Remedies (2012), para. HER-19 [para. 9].
Carl David Smith, appellant in person;
Georgina Peggy Beals and Karen Provo, respondents in person.
This appeal was heard on September 28, 2015, in Halifax, N.S., before MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Fichaud and Bryson, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Bryson, J.A., on October 15, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP