McConmey v. Town of Coaticook

McConmey v. Town of Coaticook

Although the enclave (loss of practical access) primarily resulted from the flood, the municipality had statutory power to close the street but, having not transferred the streetbed to the owner under art. 429 para. 33, and by removing the remaining pedestrian/horse access, the municipality caused a compensable prejudice; appellant had standing because exercise of the purchase option operated retroactively (art. 1088 C.C.); the action is for indemnity (akin to expropriation compensation) not an action in damages, so the six‑month prescription in arts. 622–623 does not apply; matter remitted to trial court to quantify indemnity.

Citation
[1950] SCR 486
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Albert J. J. McConmey; Respondent / Defendant: The Corporation of the Town of Coaticook
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1949
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (municipal Law) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; prior dismissals set aside to the extent of liability for indemnity and matter remitted to Superior Court (St‑François) for assessment of indemnity payable to appellant.
Legal Topics
Street Closure, Enclave, Indemnity, Prescription, Expropriation Compensation, Lease With Option to Purchase
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Property Law Civil Law Street Closure Enclave Indemnity Prescription Expropriation Compensation +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert J. J. McConmey

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Corporation of the Town of Coaticook

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (municipal Law) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the municipality was obliged to pay indemnity for closure of a street affecting the appellant's farm
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had legal interest/standing after exercising the purchase option to sue for indemnity
  3. 3 Whether the short six‑month prescription in the Cities and Towns Act applies to this claim

Ratio Decidendi

Although the enclave (loss of practical access) primarily resulted from the flood, the municipality had statutory power to close the street but, having not transferred the streetbed to the owner under art. 429 para. 33, and by removing the remaining pedestrian/horse access, the municipality caused a compensable prejudice; appellant had standing because exercise of the purchase option operated retroactively (art. 1088 C.C.); the action is for indemnity (akin to expropriation compensation) not an action in damages, so the six‑month prescription in arts. 622–623 does not apply; matter remitted to trial court to quantify indemnity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; prior dismissals set aside to the extent of liability for indemnity and matter remitted to Superior Court (St‑François) for assessment of indemnity payable to appellant.

Orders

  • Return record to Superior Court of the district of St‑François for determination of amount of indemnity payable to appellant
  • Appellant awarded costs in the Supreme Court and entitled to disbursements before this Court and to one‑half of taxable counsel fees; appellant to have costs in Superior Court (first and second hearings) and in Court of Appeal to be fixed according to scale and amount awarded on retrial