Silver Sands Realty Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)
The appeal is dismissed because the Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and his statutory interpretations were correct under the appropriate standard of review; accordingly Cow Bay Pond was properly found to be a Crown‑vested watercourse and the stop orders need not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 NSCA 28
- Parties
- Appellant: Silver Sands Realty Ltd.; Respondent: The Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia; the Registrar General of Land Titles; Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations
- Court
- Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 6 April 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Trial Judge's Dismissal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Watercourse Ownership, Crown Vesting, Land Registration, Stop Order, Subdivision Registration, Statutory Interpretation, Standard of Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Silver Sands Realty Ltd.
Appellant
The Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia; the Registrar General of Land Titles; Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Trial Judge's Dismissal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Cow Bay Pond is a watercourse vested in the Crown under the Water Act and the Environment Act
- 2 Whether the trial judge erred in interpreting the Land Registration Act and the Municipal Government Act s.268(2)
- 3 Whether the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact or law
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed because the Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and his statutory interpretations were correct under the appropriate standard of review; accordingly Cow Bay Pond was properly found to be a Crown‑vested watercourse and the stop orders need not be rescinded.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs of $5,000 including disbursements.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Silver Sands Realty Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) Court Court of Appeal Date 2010-04-06 Citation 2010 NSCA 28 Docket CA 313566 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator MacDonald, J. Michael (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Oland, Linda L. (Honourable Justice); Farrar, David P.S. (Honourable Justice) (CA) Document Type Decision Relations Library Sheet - Silver Sands Realty Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) - 2010 NSCA 28 - 2010-04-06 - Library Sheet Decision Content NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Silver Sands Realty Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) 2010 NSCA 28 Date: 20100406 Docket: CA 313566 Registry: Halifax Between: Silver Sands Realty Ltd. Appellant v. The Attorney General for the Province of Nova Scotia, the Registrar General of Land Titles and Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations Respondents Judges: MacDonald, C.J.N.S.; Oland and Farrar, JJ.A. Appeal Heard: April 6, 2010, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Judgment: April 12, 2010 Held: Appeal is dismissed with costs of $5,000 including disbursements, per reasons for judgment of Oland, J.A.; MacDonald, C.J.N.S. and Farrar, J.A. concurring. Counsel: James D. MacNeil and Kelly A. Peck, for the appellant Alexander M. Cameron, for the respondents Reasons for judgment: (Orally) [1] Justice Gerald R.P. Moir dismissed the appellant's proceeding which sought to rescind stop orders issued under the Land Registration Act, S.N.S. 2001, c. 6, s. 56(2) and to perfect the subdivision registration of several lots which extended across Cow Bay Pond. His decision which issued October 19, 2007 is reported as 2007 NSSC 291 and his supplemental decision dated March 11, 2009 as 2009 NSSC 74. His order is dated June 3, 2009. [2] The appellant appeals, claiming that the trial judge erred in finding that Cow Bay Pond was a watercourse vested in the Crown pursuant to the Water Act, S.N.S. 1919, c.5, s. 3 and the Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994‑95, c. 1, s. 103. It also argues that he erred in his interpretation of the Land Registration Act, and the Municipal Government Act, S.N.S. 1998, c. 18, s. 268(2). [3] We have carefully reviewed the decision of the trial judge including his reference to Corkum v. Nash (1990), 98 N.S.R. (2d) 364 (N.S.S.C.) and the basis upon which he distinguished it, and the able arguments, written and oral, on behalf of the parties. We see no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or his application of legal standards to the facts. Moreover, we are of the view that his interpretation of the legislation reviewed in his decision meets the correctness standard of review. We would dismiss the appeal with costs of $5,000 including disbursements. Oland, J.A. Concurred in: MacDonald, C.J.N.S. Farrar, J.A.