Webster v. Duncanson

Webster v. Duncanson

The court held the 1966 deed's reference to the lands of 'Keith Duncanson' refers to the lands conveyed by the 1964 deed (Muriel and Robert), the 100‑acre notation is a falsa demonstratio and not controlling, and on the evidence the Hall survey line is the true common boundary; the defendant's adverse possession claim failed because use was not sufficiently open, exclusive, continuous and notorious for the statutory twenty years, therefore plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of boundary as per Plan Y8377‑07 (Hall).

Citation
2014 NSSC 152
Parties
Plaintiff: Marilyn Webster; Plaintiff: Dorothy Leon Melanson; Plaintiff: Elaine Marie Mahar; Plaintiff: James Phillip Mooney; Plaintiff: Joseph Fraser Mooney; Plaintiff: Grace Allison Nickerson; Defendant: Robert K. Duncanson; Defendant: Neil Duncanson; Defendant: Michael Hurlburt
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Real Property Boundary Declaration / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs granted declaration that the common boundary is the Hall line (Plan Y8377‑07); defendant's adverse possession claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Boundary Declaration, Deed Interpretation, Falsa Demonstratio, Adverse Possession, Limitations of Actions Act S.10/s.13/s.22, Weight of Survey Evidence, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Adverse Possession Evidence Survey and Extrinsic Evidence Statute of Limitations Boundary Declaration Deed Interpretation Falsa Demonstratio +3 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marilyn Webster

Plaintiff

Dorothy Leon Melanson

Plaintiff

Elaine Marie Mahar

Plaintiff

James Phillip Mooney

Plaintiff

Joseph Fraser Mooney

Plaintiff

Grace Allison Nickerson

Plaintiff

Robert K. Duncanson

Defendant

Neil Duncanson

Defendant

Michael Hurlburt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Real Property Boundary Declaration / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of the 1966 deed reference to lands of 'Keith Duncanson'
  2. 2 Identification of the common boundary between Mooney and Duncanson properties (Hall line v DeWolfe line v Dearman line)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant acquired title by adverse possession to lands between Hall and Dearman lines

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the 1966 deed's reference to the lands of 'Keith Duncanson' refers to the lands conveyed by the 1964 deed (Muriel and Robert), the 100‑acre notation is a falsa demonstratio and not controlling, and on the evidence the Hall survey line is the true common boundary; the defendant's adverse possession claim failed because use was not sufficiently open, exclusive, continuous and notorious for the statutory twenty years, therefore plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of boundary as per Plan Y8377‑07 (Hall).

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs granted declaration that the common boundary is the Hall line (Plan Y8377‑07); defendant's adverse possession claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Declaration that the boundary between the plaintiffs' property and the property of Robert K. Duncanson is the boundary shown on Plan of Survey No. Y8377‑07 prepared by Everett B. Hall dated June 26, 2009, described in the Further Amended Statement of Claim
  • Dismissal of Robert K. Duncanson's claim for title by adverse possession to the lands between the Hall and Dearman lines and dismissal of the counterclaim to that extent