Buggie v. McCabe

Buggie v. McCabe

The adjudicator accepted the survey locating the legal boundary inside the 196 property, concluded the cedar trunks were on the Claimants' land so the McCabes unlawfully trespassed and substantially damaged Claimants' trees, and awarded compensatory damages for the loss of the cedars; conversely the garden fence was found to belong to the McCabes so the Claimants' claim for its removal failed; the boundary fence placed by the McCabes on the Claimants' land must be returned to the McCabes.

Citation
2016 NSSM 61
Parties
Claimant: Brian Buggie; Claimant: Sharon Buggie; Defendant: Robert McCabe; Defendant: Bonnie McCabe
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Property/boundary Dispute / Final Decision (adjudicator's Ruling)
Outcome
Claim partly allowed in favour of Claimants for tree damage; claim for garden fence removal denied; defendants' counterclaim for removal of the boundary fence dismissed but defendants entitled to return of their fence material.
Legal Topics
Boundary Dispute, Trespass, Tree Trimming/vegetation Damage, Adverse Possession (excluded), Survey Evidence, Fixtures
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort (trespass/damage) Civil Procedure Boundary Dispute Trespass Tree Trimming/vegetation Damage Adverse Possession (excluded) Survey Evidence +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Buggie

Claimant

Sharon Buggie

Claimant

Robert McCabe

Defendant

Bonnie McCabe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Property/boundary Dispute / Final Decision (adjudicator's Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants had the right to remove or prune the cedars along the boundary
  2. 2 Ownership of the cedar trees and location of the boundary line
  3. 3 Whether the defendants lawfully removed the garden fence and other plants

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator accepted the survey locating the legal boundary inside the 196 property, concluded the cedar trunks were on the Claimants' land so the McCabes unlawfully trespassed and substantially damaged Claimants' trees, and awarded compensatory damages for the loss of the cedars; conversely the garden fence was found to belong to the McCabes so the Claimants' claim for its removal failed; the boundary fence placed by the McCabes on the Claimants' land must be returned to the McCabes.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed in favour of Claimants for tree damage; claim for garden fence removal denied; defendants' counterclaim for removal of the boundary fence dismissed but defendants entitled to return of their fence material.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimants damages of 9,650.00 CAD for destruction of 15 cedar trees.
  • Defendants to pay Claimants costs of 386.35 CAD, for a total award of 10,036.35 CAD.