Tremblay, Tremblay and Fesserton Heights Ratepayers Association v. Tay (Township), (1984) 2 O.A.C. 305 (CA)
Judge | Arnup, Morden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | March 26, 1984 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (1984), 2 O.A.C. 305 (CA) |
Tremblay v. Tay (1984), 2 O.A.C. 305 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Tremblay, Tremblay and Fesserton Heights Ratepayers Association v. Tay, Township of
Indexed As: Tremblay, Tremblay and Fesserton Heights Ratepayers Association v. Tay (Township)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Arnup, Morden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A.
March 26, 1984.
Summary:
The issue in this case concerned the validity of a deed to a lot in a residential subdivision. The subdivision was subdivided pursuant to the practice of "checkerboarding" which was to avoid the necessity of obtaining subdivision approvals. The trial judge held that the deed in question was void because of a repugnancy between the granting clause and the habendum.
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed.
Deeds and Documents - Topic 2628
Operation and interpretation - Interest conveyed - Repugnancy between grant and habendum - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that where the habendum in a deed is repugnant to the grant, then the words of the grant govern - See paragraph 16.
Cases Noticed:
Buckler's Case (1597), 2 Co. Rep. 55a; 76 E.R. 537, refd to. [para. 17].
Pigot v. Salisbury (1674), Poll. 146, 86 E.R. 542, refd to. [para. 17].
Fisher v. Wigg (1700), 1 P. Wms. 14; 24 E.R. 275, refd to. [para. 17].
Goodtitle v. Gibbs (1826), 5 Barn. & Cress. 709; 29 R.R. 366, refd to. [para. 17].
Doe d. Meyers v. Marsh (1852), 9 U.C.Q.B. 542, refd to. [para. 17].
Owston v. Williams (1858), 16 U.C.Q.B. 405, refd to. [para. 17].
Langlois v. Lesperance (1892), 22 O.R. 682, refd to. [para. 17].
Purcell v. Tully (1906), 12 O.L.R. 5, refd to. [para. 17].
Statutes Noticed:
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 66, sect. 13 [para. 6].
Counsel:
John I. Laskin and J.J. Yaworsky, for the appellants;
Gordon Teskey, Q.C., for the respondent, Township of Tay.
This appeal was heard by Arnup, Morden and Tarnopolsky, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 1, 1984.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Arnup, J.A., and was released on March 26, 1984.
To continue reading
Request your trial