Court of Appeal

CASE NO.                                                   VOL. NO.                                                           PAGE

CHATEAU LAFLEUR DEVELOPMENT       - and -                     MARITIME TELEGRAPH AND

CORPORATION, a body corporate, and                               TELEPHONE COMPANY LIMITED,

CAN-EURO INVESTMENTS LIMITED,                           and MARITIME TEL & TEL LIMITED,

a body corporate                                                                                                        a body corporate

(Appellants)                                                                                                                    (Respondents)

(Respondents by cross-appeal)                                                                 (Appellants by cross-appeal)

CA 169568                                                  Halifax, N.S.                                      CROMWELL, J.A.

                        Cite as: Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company v. Chateau

                                   LaFleur Development Corporation, 2001 NSCA 167

APPEAL HEARD:                                         September 14, 2001

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:                        November 27, 2001

SUBJECT:                 Real Property - Easements - Equitable Easements

Proprietary Estoppel

Damages for Wrongful Interference with Contractual Relations

SUMMARY:              The respondents sued the appellants claiming an easement over a portion of their land and damages for wrongful interference with it.  At trial in the Supreme Court, it was found that the respondents had an easement but were not entitled to damages.  The appellants appealed the judge’s finding that there was an easement and the respondents cross-appealed his dismissal of their damages claim. 

ISSUES:                      1.         Did the trial judge err in concluding that the respondents were entitled to a right of way across the appellants’ land?

2.         Did the trial judge err in dismissing the respondents’ action for damages?

RESULT:                    The appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed.  The judge correctly found that the respondents had an equitable easement of which the appellants had notice.  In light of that conclusion it was not necessary to address the alternative bases upon which the trial judge found in favour of the respondents.  With respect to the respondents’ claim for damages, the trial judge found that the appellants’ actions did not cause the loss of a sale of the respondents’ lands upon which the damages claim was based.  This conclusion, which was one of fact, was reasonably supported by the evidence and could not be disturbed on appeal.