Bilodeau v. Dufour

Bilodeau v. Dufour

Although appellant was not owner of the soil, his long possession by tolerance of the Crown, and the State's knowledge of and acquiescence in his works, conferred possession effective against third parties and a right to civil fruits; he also acquired a droit de superficie in respect of the road surface which entitled him to recover reasonable compensation for respondents' use; s.103 R.S.Q. 1941 c.93 did not apply.

Citation
[1952] 2 SCR 264
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Arsène Bilodeau; Respondent / Defendant: Lionel Dufour; Respondent / Defendant: Jean-Marie Dufour
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 1952
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (property/transportation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; action maintained to the extent of $1,220.13; costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Possession by Sufferance, Civil Fruits, Droit De Superficie (superficies), Unjust Enrichment (enrichment Without Cause), Statutory Interpretation R.s.q. 1941 C.93 S.103, Remedies for Use of Road
Source Language
English
Property Law Public/crown Lands Civil Remedies Transportation Law Possession by Sufferance Civil Fruits Droit De Superficie (superficies) Unjust Enrichment (enrichment Without Cause) +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arsène Bilodeau

Appellant / Plaintiff

Lionel Dufour

Respondent / Defendant

Jean-Marie Dufour

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (property/transportation) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was entitled to compensation for respondents' use of a road built on Crown and colonization lands after contractual expiration
  2. 2 Whether possession by sufferance of the Crown creates possession effective against third parties and confers right to civil fruits
  3. 3 Whether appellant acquired a droit de superficie giving ownership of the road surface against third parties

Ratio Decidendi

Although appellant was not owner of the soil, his long possession by tolerance of the Crown, and the State's knowledge of and acquiescence in his works, conferred possession effective against third parties and a right to civil fruits; he also acquired a droit de superficie in respect of the road surface which entitled him to recover reasonable compensation for respondents' use; s.103 R.S.Q. 1941 c.93 did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; action maintained to the extent of $1,220.13; costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment entered for appellant in the amount of $1,220.13