Cite as: Davis v. Davis, 1988 NSSC 2 S.H. No. 62331
I N TEE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA TRIAL D I V I S I O N BETWEEN:
LEONARD W. DAVIS and LINDA R. DAVIS Plaintiffs
- and -HER MAJESTY TEE QUEEN i n t h e R i g h t of the P r o v i n c e of N o v a Scotia, as represented by T h e H i n i s t e r for the D e p a r t m e n t of Transport Defendant
HEARD: at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before the
Honourable Mr. Justice John M. Davison,
in Chambers, on December 17, 1987, and
December 30, 1987
DECISION: February 2, 1988
COUNSEL: Joseph M. J. Cooper, Esq., for the Plaintiffs
David G. Giovannetti, Esq., for the Defendant
John D. MacIsaac, Q.C., for Standard Paving
Maritime Limited and Anita Kennett
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: LEONARD a. DAVIS and LINDA R. DAVIS
- HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in the Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, as represented by the minister for the Department of Transport DAVISON, J . : T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e i s s u a n c e of a n I n t e r l o c u t o r y f o r a n Order " d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a s t h e 'MacPhee Road ' . . . " A t a p r e - t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f s A p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e owners and t h e MacPhee Road. S . H . No. 6 2 3 3 1 P l a i n t i f f s and -Defendant m e i n Chambers f o l l o w i n g t h e N o t i c e , A p p l i c a t i o n i n t e r p a r t e s , s t a t u s of a c e r t a i n road known p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g , I t o g i v e n o t i c e of t h e o c c u p i e r s of p r e m i s e s which a b u t
On t h e d a t e of t h e h e a r i n g , a number of p e r s o n s a t t e n d e d and i n d i c a t e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e on b e h a l f of S t a n d a r d Paving Mar i t ime L i m i t e d and A n i t a K e n n e t t , a p r o p e r t y owner. I n a d d i t i o n , p r e s e n t i n t h e cour t room, f o u r t o be h e a r d b u t would n o t be w e r e Bernard Verge , W a l l i s Amos Elmsdale and Robbie MacPhee of S t e l l a r t o n . I t was a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e m a t t e r on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r day and d i s c u s s i o n s t o o k p l a c e a s t o w h e t h e r a n a p p l i c a t i o n i n Chambers was t h e i s s u e s . I n t h a t r e s p e c t , it was e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e m a t t e r would d a y s . C i v i l P r o c e d u r e Rule 9 . 0 2 A proceeding, other than a proceeding
under Rule 57 and Rules 59 to 61,
(a) in which the sole or principal
question at issue is, or is likely
to be, a question of law, or one of
construction of an enactment, will,
contract, or other document;
(b) in which there is unlikely to
be any substantial dispute of fact;
(c) which may be commenced by an
originating application, motion, originating summons, petition,
or otherwise under an enactment;
shall be commenced by filing an originating
notice (application inter partes) in Form
a p p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d i n g c o u n s e l a number of i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e of whom i n d i c a t e d t h e y d e s i r e r e t a i n i n g c o u n s e l . Those p e r s o n s and A l b e r t MacQuire a l l o f c o u l d n o t go f o r w a r d a n a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o d e t e r m i n e I was a d v i s e d by c o u n s e l t h a t t a k e t h r e e and o n e - h a l f r e a d s a s f o l l o w s : originating
9.02A in a proceeding between parties, and
by an originating notice (ex parte
application) in Form 9.02B in an ex parte
proceeding.
It is apparent from the affidavits and from the estimate
of time involved that there are substantial issues of fact to
be determined. It is also apparent that the time anticipated
renders a Chambers hearing impractical. For these reasons,
it is my view that the proceeding should be by way of trial
where the presiding trial judge will have the opportunity of
making findings of fact following the advantage afforded to
him by the observation of witnesses.
I am prepared to order that this hearing be adjourned
into court pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 37.10(d).
Furthermore, I don't believe that I will be fettering
the discretion of the trial judge if I order that the Notice
and Affidavits stand as pleadings with liberty to any party
to amend or add thereto or apply for particulars thereof pursuant
to Civil Procedure Rule 37.10(e).
A further issue which was the subject of consideration when counsel were before me in Chambers was whether the present action should be combined with an action under the Quietins Titles Act, R.S.N.S., 1967, c.259. In Stewarts of Dartmouth Ltd. v. City of Dartmouth (1981), 48 N.S.R. (2d) 282, Mr. Justice
Burchell combined an action under the Quieting Titles Act with
an application for a Mandamus and in doing so referred to s.
2(2) of the Statue which reads as follows:
2 ( 2 ) The claim may be the sole claim in the action or may be joined with a claim in trespass to land, in ejectment, for the discovery of land, for mesne profits, for partition, for foreclosure of a mortgage, equity of redemption or agreement of sale, for specific performance of an agreement to convey land or with any other claim in which the title to or right to possession of land is in issue or with any combination of such claims. The Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (79
N.S.R. (2d) 308) dismissed an appeal from the decision of Mr.
Justice Burchell and quoted extensively from His Lordship's
judgment including his direction to combine the action with
the Quieting Titles Act and the Appeal Division made no adverse
comment on this
In Spearwater v. Seaboyer and Seaboyer (J.A.) Transport
Limited (19841, 65 N.S.R. (2d) 280, Mr. Justice Nathanson dealt
with an action for trespass and was required to consider the
ownership of a roadway. His Lordship stated at page 286:
In this case, the defendants have the burden of proving ownership by the Crown and they have failed to carry that burden. They might have called an appropriate public servant as a witness. They might have applied to join the Crown as a party to this proceeding: all actions for a declaration of title should include a claim under the Quieting of Titles Act, R . S . N . S . 1967, c.
259, and t h e At torney-Genera l s h o u l d be jo ined as a p a r t y . Again a t page 288 t h e Cour t s t a t e d : ...t h e p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d i n t h i s p roceed ing of t h e Q u i e t i n q o f T i t l e s A c t and , t h e u s u a l p r o c e d u r e , t h e At torney-Genera l n o t do so. I am d e c l a r a t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t boundary t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , SO. I am concerned t h a t a t r i a l judge would have t h e same r e l u c t a n c e Nathanson. The Q u i e t i n q T i t l e s who claims " a p r o p e r t y r i g h t i n l a n d " . i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s of t h e i s s u e s i n t h e p roceed ing . Fur the rmore , t h e p rocedure T i t l e s A c t h a s b u i l t i n s a f e g u a r d s p a r t i e s and I would e x p e c t d i r e c t i o n s i s s o u g h t , t h e c o u r t would r e q u i r e n o t i c e t o be g iven t o a l l pe r sons who own o r occupy l a n d s a b u t t i n g t h e roadway. I n my o p i n i o n , t h e o r d e r i n t h e p roceed ings of a n a c t i o n under R . S . N . S . , 1967, c .259. of Nova S c o t i a have made a c l a i m under t h e p r o v i s i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e y would h a v e jo ined as a p a r t y . They d i d r e l u c t a n t t o g r a n t a under and I d e c l i n e t o do i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s as e x p r e s s e d by M r . J u s t i c e A c t i s a v a i l a b l e t o any pe r son I n t h e p r e s e n t p r o c e e d i n g , t h e roadway i s p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e P l a i n t i f f and o t h e r s must become o u t l i n e d i n t h e Q u i e t i n q t o p r o t e c t a l l i n t e r e s t e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e a n o r d e r f o r s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r i n c l u s i o n t h e Q u i e t i n q T i t l e s Act
The f i n a l i s s u e i s a l r e a d y shown i n t e r e s t i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s a s d e f e n d a n t s o r P rocedure Rule 8 . S t a n d a r d Pav ing Kenne t t have s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d I c o n s i d e r it more a p p r o p r i a t e made d e f e n d a n t s a s t h i s i s t h e g u i e t i n q T i t l e s Act . I w i l l s i g n a n o r d e r i n c o r p o r a t i n g my C o s t s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be c o s t s i n t h e c a u s e . H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a F e b r u a r y 2 , 1988 whether t h o s e p a r t i e s who have p r o c e e d i n g s be added t o t h e a s i n t e r v e n e r s p u r s u a n t t o C i v i l Mar i t ime L i m i t e d and A n i t a t o be made d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s be p rocedure c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e f i n d i n g s h e r e i n .
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.