Carey v. Toronto (City)

Carey v. Toronto (City)

Because the plaintiff accepted and took a lease which expressly described the lot according to registered plans 352 and 380, and plan 352 showed the disputed rear twenty feet as part of lots 11–15 leased to MacDonell, the plaintiff was bound by the terms and boundaries of those plans and had no enforceable right of way over land thereby shown to be included in MacDonell's lease; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
(1886) 14 SCR 172
Parties
Appellant / Purchaser (plaintiff): Patrick F. Carey; Respondent / Purchaser (defendant): Alexander MacDonell; Respondent / Vendor (defendant): The Corporation of the City of Toronto; Respondents (defendants): William Henry Bennett and James Arthur Bennett
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 April 1886
Procedural Posture
Sale of Land / Lease Dispute (property & Contract) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Sale by Plan, Lease Interpretation, Right of Way / Lanes, Specific Performance, Registration of Plans
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Real Property Equity Sale by Plan Lease Interpretation Right of Way / Lanes Specific Performance +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick F. Carey

Appellant / Purchaser (plaintiff)

Alexander MacDonell

Respondent / Purchaser (defendant)

The Corporation of the City of Toronto

Respondent / Vendor (defendant)

William Henry Bennett and James Arthur Bennett

Respondents (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Sale of Land / Lease Dispute (property & Contract) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser (Carey) acquired a right of way over a lane shown on the sale plan
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of a lease referencing registered plans (352 and 380) bound the plaintiff to the terms of those plans
  3. 3 Whether the City could close and include the lane into lots already leased to MacDonell

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiff accepted and took a lease which expressly described the lot according to registered plans 352 and 380, and plan 352 showed the disputed rear twenty feet as part of lots 11–15 leased to MacDonell, the plaintiff was bound by the terms and boundaries of those plans and had no enforceable right of way over land thereby shown to be included in MacDonell's lease; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the defendant MacDonell.