Maranda v. Corbeil

Maranda v. Corbeil

Trial court findings that plaintiffs had the requisite possession and that the appellant's extension disturbed that possession were supported by ample evidence; appellate courts must defer to those factual findings, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the lower courts' judgments were affirmed.

Citation
[1963] SCR 641
Parties
Defendant, Appellant: Dame Eva Maranda; Plaintiffs, Respondents: Maurice Corbeil and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 1963
Procedural Posture
Possessory Action (real Property Encroachment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Disposition of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments of Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Encroachment, Possession, Possessory Action, Demolition of Extension, Proof of Possession
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Civil Procedure Encroachment Possession Possessory Action Demolition of Extension Proof of Possession

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dame Eva Maranda

Defendant, Appellant

Maurice Corbeil and Others

Plaintiffs, Respondents

Procedural Posture

Possessory Action (real Property Encroachment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Final Disposition of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs established possession required by Civil Code art. 2193 (continuous and uninterrupted, peaceable, public, unequivocal, as proprietor for a year and a day)
  2. 2 Whether construction of the extension disturbed plaintiffs' possession under Code of Civil Procedure art. 1064
  3. 3 Whether the extension encroached on the plaintiffs' land as found by the trial court

Ratio Decidendi

Trial court findings that plaintiffs had the requisite possession and that the appellant's extension disturbed that possession were supported by ample evidence; appellate courts must defer to those factual findings, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the lower courts' judgments were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgments of Superior Court and Court of Queen's Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment requiring demolition of the appellant's extension affirmed.