Epstein v. Reymes

Epstein v. Reymes

Appeal allowed in part: trial judge's blanket injunction against commercial hunting was restored because the hunting operation caused recurring, continuing noise and incursions (birds, dogs, stray shot) materially interfering with enjoyment of the locality and could not be confined by the Court of Appeal's partial remedy; separately, the respondent was entitled as a lower riparian owner to the benefit of an artificial subterranean watercourse after long continued use, and intentional interference with that flow was tortious and remediable by injunction.

Citation
[1973] SCR 85
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Alexander Epstein; Plaintiff/cross Appellant: Eve Elizabeth Gilmour; Defendant/respondent: Jack Reymes
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Injunction and Nuisance / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on June 29, 1972
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Injunction, Riparian Rights, Prescription (prescriptive Easement), Game Farm Regulation
Source Language
English
Property Law Municipal Law Tort Law Nuisance Injunction Riparian Rights Prescription (prescriptive Easement) Game Farm Regulation

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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Epstein

Plaintiff/appellant

Eve Elizabeth Gilmour

Plaintiff/cross Appellant

Jack Reymes

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Injunction and Nuisance / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment on June 29, 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether injunction restraining commercial hunting should extend to entire defendant property
  2. 2 Whether defendant acquired a prescriptive right/easement to the flow of an artificial subsurface watercourse
  3. 3 Whether intentional interference with subsurface waterflow without justification is tortious and remediable by injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed in part: trial judge's blanket injunction against commercial hunting was restored because the hunting operation caused recurring, continuing noise and incursions (birds, dogs, stray shot) materially interfering with enjoyment of the locality and could not be confined by the Court of Appeal's partial remedy; separately, the respondent was entitled as a lower riparian owner to the benefit of an artificial subterranean watercourse after long continued use, and intentional interference with that flow was tortious and remediable by injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal set aside; order of trial judge restored restraining commercial hunting (discharging of arms for commercial hunting) over the defendant's property.
  • Injunction against trap shooting maintained.