Merritt v. City of Toronto

Merritt v. City of Toronto

The decisive factual finding that the plaintiff's lot abutted marsh/land rather than navigable water meant he was not a riparian proprietor and therefore had no enforceable riparian rights; accordingly the injunction and damages claims failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1913) 48 SCR 1
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): William H. Merritt; Respondent (defendant): City of Toronto
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1913
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (riparian Rights Dispute) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed
Legal Topics
Riparian Rights, Injunction, Marshland Vs. Navigable Water, Burden of Proof, Evidence
Source Language
english
Maritime Law Property Law Civil Procedure Riparian Rights Injunction Marshland Vs. Navigable Water Burden of Proof Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William H. Merritt

Appellant (plaintiff)

City of Toronto

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (riparian Rights Dispute) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Affirmed by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was a riparian proprietor entitled to riparian rights
  2. 2 Whether the land between plaintiff's lot and the bay was water (navigable) or marsh/land
  3. 3 Whether the city's excavation interfered with enforceable riparian rights

Ratio Decidendi

The decisive factual finding that the plaintiff's lot abutted marsh/land rather than navigable water meant he was not a riparian proprietor and therefore had no enforceable riparian rights; accordingly the injunction and damages claims failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed