Van Alstyne v. Ruck et al.

Van Alstyne v. Ruck et al.

The respondents were not entitled to a right of way over the western portion of the 20-foot strip because the conveyances, read with the registered plan, granted only an easement to the private road and did not extend across that western portion; s.84(14) of the Registry Act does not create individual or public rights beyond the section's procedural purposes and the strip did not qualify as a public highway under the Surveys Act.

Citation
[1957] SCR 142
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Samuel Van Alstyne; Defendant/appellant: Doris Van Alstyne; Plaintiff/respondent: Lindsey D. Ruck; Plaintiff/respondent: Edmond E. Gowett; Plaintiff/respondent: Thomas P. Compeau; Plaintiff/respondent: John H. Scott
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 January 1957
Procedural Posture
Appeal (real Property/easement) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of County Court restored and respondents' action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Plan of Subdivision, Registry Act S.84(14), Surveys Act S.11(2)
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Easements Statutory Interpretation Right of Way Plan of Subdivision Registry Act S.84(14) Surveys Act S.11(2)

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Van Alstyne

Defendant/appellant

Doris Van Alstyne

Defendant/appellant

Lindsey D. Ruck

Plaintiff/respondent

Edmond E. Gowett

Plaintiff/respondent

Thomas P. Compeau

Plaintiff/respondent

John H. Scott

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (real Property/easement) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 20-foot strip shown as a "Right of Way" on plan 338 became a public highway or other interest enforceable under s.84(14) of the Registry Act or s.11(2) of the Surveys Act
  2. 2 Whether the conveyances granted the respondents an easement extending over the whole 20-foot strip including the part west of the projected boundary between lots 2 and 3
  3. 3 Whether the plan was binding on parties and whether the strip was within the limits of the registered plan

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not entitled to a right of way over the western portion of the 20-foot strip because the conveyances, read with the registered plan, granted only an easement to the private road and did not extend across that western portion; s.84(14) of the Registry Act does not create individual or public rights beyond the section's procedural purposes and the strip did not qualify as a public highway under the Surveys Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of County Court restored and respondents' action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of the County Court restored (respondents' claim dismissed).
  • Appellants awarded their costs of the action and of the Court of Appeal.