Tweedie v. The King

Tweedie v. The King

Majority held that documentary evidence (leases, wills), long, continuous and notorious use and occupation of the boom and foreshore by the landowners and lessees, together with the provincial order-in-council disclaimer, supplied sufficient evidence of adverse possession/possessory title to the foreshore (adapted standard for foreshore), and therefore appellant held title to the foreshore; appeal allowed and matter remitted to Exchequer Court to assess additional compensation for foreshore and solum taken.

Citation
(1915) 52 SCR 197
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Lemuel J. Tweedie; Respondent (plaintiff): His Majesty The King
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 1915
Procedural Posture
Expropriation/compensation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); judgment of Exchequer Court reversed in part; appellant entitled to title to foreshore by possession; matter remitted to Exchequer Court to fix additional compensation; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Foreshore, Adverse Possession, Prescription, Easement (booming), Public Rights of Navigation, Evidence (lost Grant/presumption)
Source Language
English
Property Law Foreshore Adverse Possession Prescription Easement (booming) Public Rights of Navigation Evidence (lost Grant/presumption)

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lemuel J. Tweedie

Appellant (defendant)

His Majesty The King

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Expropriation/compensation Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant acquired title to the foreshore by possession/adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether appellant acquired a prescriptive easement for booming over the foreshore
  3. 3 Whether a presumption of a lost grant can be relied on / must be pleaded

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that documentary evidence (leases, wills), long, continuous and notorious use and occupation of the boom and foreshore by the landowners and lessees, together with the provincial order-in-council disclaimer, supplied sufficient evidence of adverse possession/possessory title to the foreshore (adapted standard for foreshore), and therefore appellant held title to the foreshore; appeal allowed and matter remitted to Exchequer Court to assess additional compensation for foreshore and solum taken.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); judgment of Exchequer Court reversed in part; appellant entitled to title to foreshore by possession; matter remitted to Exchequer Court to fix additional compensation; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant
  • Case referred back to the Exchequer Court to determine and fix additional compensation for the foreshore and solum taken