Abell v. The Corporation of the County of York

Abell v. The Corporation of the County of York

Majority held that s.433 of the Municipal Act, 1913 did not destroy pre-existing reserved easements; to divest such private rights the legislature must use clear and unambiguous words or necessary implication; s.433 was intended to resolve vesting confusion and not to confiscate private easements, therefore the trial judge's finding that the easement survived was restored.

Citation
(1920) 61 SCR 345
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Henry Abell; Respondent (defendant): The Corporation of the County of York
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Decision on Statutory Construction of Municipal Act S.433, Trial Judgment Restored
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division reversed; judgment of the trial court restored.
Legal Topics
Highway Dedication, Easement, Municipal Act S.433, Effect of Repeal on Vested Rights, Expropriation
Source Language
English
Property Municipal Law Statutory Interpretation Transportation Highway Dedication Easement Municipal Act S.433 Effect of Repeal on Vested Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Abell

Appellant (plaintiff)

The Corporation of the County of York

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Decision on Statutory Construction of Municipal Act S.433, Trial Judgment Restored

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.433 of the Municipal Act, 1913 abrogated pre-existing reserved easements in highway soil
  2. 2 Whether repeal or rewording of prior municipal vesting provisions effects taking of private property without compensation
  3. 3 Proper canon of construction where statute appears to affect private rights

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that s.433 of the Municipal Act, 1913 did not destroy pre-existing reserved easements; to divest such private rights the legislature must use clear and unambiguous words or necessary implication; s.433 was intended to resolve vesting confusion and not to confiscate private easements, therefore the trial judge's finding that the easement survived was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division reversed; judgment of the trial court restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored