Langley v. Yang

Langley v. Yang

The court held s.36 was engaged because the boulder line constituted an effective fence; although the Yangs lacked the required honest belief and acted improperly by failing to obtain a survey and creating a fait accompli, the balance of convenience favored allowing them to retain the encroachment subject to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1520
Parties
Petitioner/respondent: Robert George Langley; Petitioner/respondent: Maria Anna Adersberger-Langley; Petitioner/respondent: Jie Yang (also known as Tanya Yang); Petitioner/respondent: Xu Han (also known as Tony Han)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Property Law Act Encroachment Petition / Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Yangs permitted to retain encroachment upon payment of compensation and costs; Langleys' removal order denied provided payment is made; conditional removal ordered if payment not made within deadline.
Legal Topics
Encroachment, Easement, Boundary Dispute, Compensation, Costs
Source Language
english
Property Law Equity Civil Litigation Encroachment Easement Boundary Dispute Compensation Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert George Langley

Petitioner/respondent

Maria Anna Adersberger-Langley

Petitioner/respondent

Jie Yang (also known as Tanya Yang)

Petitioner/respondent

Xu Han (also known as Tony Han)

Petitioner/respondent

Procedural Posture

Property Law Act Encroachment Petition / Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.36 of the Property Law Act is engaged
  2. 2 Whether an aggregation of stones constitutes a "fence" or enclosure under s.36
  3. 3 Whether applicants had an honest belief as to the boundary (clean hands requirement)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held s.36 was engaged because the boulder line constituted an effective fence; although the Yangs lacked the required honest belief and acted improperly by failing to obtain a survey and creating a fait accompli, the balance of convenience favored allowing them to retain the encroachment subject to compensation and costs rather than immediate removal; awarded $22,000 compensation plus costs and disbursements, with conditional removal required if sums not paid within prescribed time.

Court Disposition

Yangs permitted to retain encroachment upon payment of compensation and costs; Langleys' removal order denied provided payment is made; conditional removal ordered if payment not made within deadline.

Orders

  • Yangs to pay Langleys $22,000 as compensation
  • Yangs to pay Langleys special costs and disbursements including $728 for a survey