Standly v. Perry

Standly v. Perry

Although accreted land ordinarily accrues to the adjacent owner, the works on which the store-house and fence stand were artificial harbour structures lawfully constructed under broad statutory authority and subsequently recognized by legislation; those works were not part of Division Street nor subject to a public right of way to the water, and the store-house was an authorized appurtenance of the harbour; accordingly the appellant was not entitled to relief and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1879) 3 SCR 356
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Robert William Standly; Appellants (plaintiffs): Covert and Hargraft (Trustees for Standly); Respondents (defendants): Ebenezer Perry et al. (Commissioners of the Cobourg Town Trust); Respondent (formal Party): Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Province of Ontario
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 1879
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Accretion, Public Right of Way, Harbour Works, Statutory Authority/ultra Vires, Private Nuisance
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Property Law Administrative/statutory Law Public Rights Accretion Public Right of Way Harbour Works Statutory Authority/ultra Vires +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert William Standly

Appellant (plaintiff)

Covert and Hargraft (Trustees for Standly)

Appellants (plaintiffs)

Ebenezer Perry et al. (Commissioners of the Cobourg Town Trust)

Respondents (defendants)

Her Majesty's Attorney General for the Province of Ontario

Respondent (formal Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether land formed by accretion (including where accretion was assisted by harbour works) accrues to the riparian owner
  2. 2 Whether artificially formed harbour works built under statutory authority can be treated as public highway or give the public a right of way to the water
  3. 3 Whether statutory authorization for harbour works and their subsequent legislative recognition extinguish any public right of way to the water by necessary implication

Ratio Decidendi

Although accreted land ordinarily accrues to the adjacent owner, the works on which the store-house and fence stand were artificial harbour structures lawfully constructed under broad statutory authority and subsequently recognized by legislation; those works were not part of Division Street nor subject to a public right of way to the water, and the store-house was an authorized appurtenance of the harbour; accordingly the appellant was not entitled to relief and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Decree of the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordering dismissal of the bill of complaint (as against defendants other than the Attorney General) affirmed.