Marshall v. Rosas

Marshall v. Rosas

Petitioner failed to satisfy statutory grounds in s.35 Property Law Act: the Statutory Building Scheme continues to provide a practical benefit by preserving single-family character and density and its removal would injure beneficiaries; alleged inadvertent registration and non-compliance are insufficient to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 1860
Parties
Petitioner: Gordon Eugene Marshall; Respondent: D. Sloan; Respondent: R. Kirkbride
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.35 Property Law Act to Cancel a Statutory Building Scheme Registered Under S.220 Land Title Act / Reasons for Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; Statutory Building Scheme remains registered on title
Legal Topics
Statutory Building Scheme, Restrictive Covenants, Section 35 Property Law Act, Section 220 Land Title Act, Obsolescence
Source Language
english
Property Law Real Property Land Title Statutory Building Scheme Restrictive Covenants Section 35 Property Law Act Section 220 Land Title Act Obsolescence

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Eugene Marshall

Petitioner

D. Sloan

Respondent

R. Kirkbride

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.35 Property Law Act to Cancel a Statutory Building Scheme Registered Under S.220 Land Title Act / Reasons for Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether registration of the Statutory Building Scheme on petitioner's enlarged title can be cancelled under s.35 Property Law Act
  2. 2 Whether the Statutory Building Scheme is obsolete due to changes in the neighbourhood or non-compliance
  3. 3 Whether continued registration provides a practical benefit to others or would cause injury to beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner failed to satisfy statutory grounds in s.35 Property Law Act: the Statutory Building Scheme continues to provide a practical benefit by preserving single-family character and density and its removal would injure beneficiaries; alleged inadvertent registration and non-compliance are insufficient to establish obsolescence or other s.35 grounds, so the petition to cancel must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Statutory Building Scheme remains registered on title

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Registration of the Statutory Building Scheme remains on the property's title