Thomas v. Guay

Thomas v. Guay

The Court concluded the respondent was entitled to revendicate the parcels because the appellant failed to establish superior title or acquisition in good faith; consequently the appellant was not entitled to reimbursement for improvements or to retain the property. The factual findings of the lower courts on title and good faith were upheld.

Citation
[1928] SCR 95
Parties
Appellant: Thomas; Respondent: Guay
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 April 1927
Procedural Posture
Action Pétitoire (revendication of Property) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Title Priority, Good Faith Acquisition, Reimbursement for Improvements, Right of Retention, Servitude, Evidence
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Quebec Civil Law Title Priority Good Faith Acquisition Reimbursement for Improvements Right of Retention Servitude +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas

Appellant

Guay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action Pétitoire (revendication of Property) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (final Judgment on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Priority between competing titles derived from the same owner
  2. 2 Whether appellant acquired title in good faith
  3. 3 Entitlement to reimbursement for improvements and right of retention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the respondent was entitled to revendicate the parcels because the appellant failed to establish superior title or acquisition in good faith; consequently the appellant was not entitled to reimbursement for improvements or to retain the property. The factual findings of the lower courts on title and good faith were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Respondent's action of revendication upheld; appellant's plea for compensation and right of retention dismissed