Delisle v. Arcand

Delisle v. Arcand

Because the original boundary and extent of the canal banks had been obliterated by collapse and embankment, the appellant failed to prove exclusive possession as owner for the requisite period; the proper course was to have the limits established by a bornage action before adjudicating the possessory claim, therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 668
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Michel Siméon Delisle; Respondent (defendant): Clovis Arcand
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Possessory Action (title to Land) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; plaintiff's possessory action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Canal, Watercourse, Canal Banks, Trespass, Possessory Action, Bornage (boundary Determination)
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Canal Watercourse Canal Banks Trespass Possessory Action Bornage (boundary Determination)

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michel Siméon Delisle

Appellant (plaintiff)

Clovis Arcand

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Possessory Action (title to Land) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a possessory action lies in favour of a person who occupied canal bank debris and claimed to the water's edge
  2. 2 Whether the owner of a mill and its canal is also owner of the canal banks and may lawfully maintain the tail-race
  3. 3 Whether the boundary between the properties must be re-established before deciding on alleged trespass and possession

Ratio Decidendi

Because the original boundary and extent of the canal banks had been obliterated by collapse and embankment, the appellant failed to prove exclusive possession as owner for the requisite period; the proper course was to have the limits established by a bornage action before adjudicating the possessory claim, therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; plaintiff's possessory action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Plaintiff's possessory action dismissed; boundary/borne limits to be re-established by an action in bornage if pursued.