Arbuckle v. Owen

Arbuckle v. Owen

On execution of the agreement the purchasers held the beneficial interest and were owners; Owen was negligent in misdirecting or failing to supervise the contractor and thus liable for damage, but claimants failed to prove the quantum of special damages for tree replacement as unreasonable and unproven; awarded limited general damages and survey marker replacement; Conrod's Construction not liable and its claim for contribution/indemnity dismissed.

Citation
2014 NSSM 32
Parties
Claimant: Janet Arbuckle; Claimant: Timothy Gray; Claimant: Nigel Kerridge; Claimant: Jane Kerridge; Defendant: Mark Owen; Defendant: Peter S. Conrod Construction Limited; Defendant: Peter Conrod’s Construction Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Action / Decision (adjudication After Hearing)
Outcome
Claim against Mark Owen allowed in part; claim against Peter S. Conrod Construction Limited/Peter Conrod’s Construction Limited dismissed; Conrod's Construction's claim for contribution/indemnity against Owen dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unauthorized Removal of Trees, Property Damage, Trespass Vs Negligence, Mitigation of Loss, Contribution and Indemnity
Source Language
English
Torts Property Law Negligence Easements Civil Procedure Unauthorized Removal of Trees Property Damage Trespass Vs Negligence +2 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Arbuckle

Claimant

Timothy Gray

Claimant

Nigel Kerridge

Claimant

Jane Kerridge

Claimant

Mark Owen

Defendant

Peter S. Conrod Construction Limited

Defendant

Peter Conrod’s Construction Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Action / Decision (adjudication After Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who owned the land at the time of the damage?
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's actions constituted negligence
  3. 3 Whether trespass claim succeeds without possession

Ratio Decidendi

On execution of the agreement the purchasers held the beneficial interest and were owners; Owen was negligent in misdirecting or failing to supervise the contractor and thus liable for damage, but claimants failed to prove the quantum of special damages for tree replacement as unreasonable and unproven; awarded limited general damages and survey marker replacement; Conrod's Construction not liable and its claim for contribution/indemnity dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim against Mark Owen allowed in part; claim against Peter S. Conrod Construction Limited/Peter Conrod’s Construction Limited dismissed; Conrod's Construction's claim for contribution/indemnity against Owen dismissed.

Orders

  • Mark Owen to pay general damages $100.00 to Janet Arbuckle and Timothy Gray
  • Mark Owen to pay survey marker replacement $632.50 to Janet Arbuckle and Timothy Gray