Ronville Lodge Ltd. v. Franklin (Township)

Ronville Lodge Ltd. v. Franklin (Township)

The appeal fails because s.600 (as amended 1905) authorizes stopping up or sale of original road allowances but does not, as a matter of law, authorize conveying an original allowance in a way that includes and thereby extinguishes a pre‑existing travelled road and the public right of passage; accordingly the appellant could not acquire title excluding public user of the 13‑foot travelled strip.

Citation
[1977] 1 SCR 101
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Ronville Lodge Limited; Respondent / Defendant: The Corporation of the Township of Franklin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1975
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority). Costs awarded; appellant entitled to costs of the motion to quash.
Legal Topics
Highways, Closing of Highways, Road Allowances, Crown Grants, Public Right of Passage, Statutory Interpretation, Ultra Vires
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Transportation Property Law Administrative Law Highways Closing of Highways Road Allowances Crown Grants +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronville Lodge Limited

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Corporation of the Township of Franklin

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant held fee simple title to a portion of an original road allowance to the exclusion of a public right of passage
  2. 2 Whether s.600 of The Consolidated Municipal Act, 1903 (as amended 1905) empowered the Crown (Lieutenant‑Governor in Council) to stop up a travelled road and convey the fee thereby extinguishing public user
  3. 3 Validity and scope of the 1912 conveyance and effect of the Road Commissioners' report

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because s.600 (as amended 1905) authorizes stopping up or sale of original road allowances but does not, as a matter of law, authorize conveying an original allowance in a way that includes and thereby extinguishes a pre‑existing travelled road and the public right of passage; accordingly the appellant could not acquire title excluding public user of the 13‑foot travelled strip.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority). Costs awarded; appellant entitled to costs of the motion to quash.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent