Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

 

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Webster v. Duncanson 2014 NSSC 152

 

Date: 20140428

Docket: SY. 284509

Registry: Yarmouth

 

 

Between:

 

 

Marilyn Webster, Dorothy Leon Melanson, Elaine Marie Mahar,

James Phillip Mooney, Joseph Fraser Mooney and Grace Allison Nickerson

 

Plaintiffs

- and -

 

Robert K. Duncanson, Neil Duncanson and Michael Hurlburt

 

Defendants

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

LIBRARY SHEET

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT:      Real Property - Title - Boundaries - Determination of Boudary

Real Property - Title - Extinguishment - Adverse Possession

 

SUMMARY:  The plaintiffs’ father purchased land from the defendant’s grandfather in 1966.  Three of the boundaries of the land conveyed are certain.  The fourth boundary contains a latent ambiguity as it is described as bounded by land of Keith Duncanson who did not own property in the area. The defendant disputed the location of the boundary and cut out a road on the disputed area.  The plaintiffs seek a declaration as to the location of the boundary line.  The defendant seeks a declaration of the location of the boundary line and, in the alternative, claims certain lands by adverse possession.


 

 

 

 

ISSUES:         What is the location of the boundary line between the properties or, in the alternative, did the defendant acquire certain lands by adverse possession.

 

RESULT:        Although Keith Duncanson did not own land in the area, evidence was adduced which established the property to the north of the plaintiffs’ lands were referred to in the community and by the grantor of the 1966 deed as lands of Keith Duncanson.  The line as surveyed by the plaintiffs’surveyor is the boundary between the properties.  The defendant did make use of the lands which he claimed by adverse possession sufficient to extinguish the plaintiffs’ title.  The claim of adverse possession fails.  The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration the boundary between their property and the defendants’ property is as they claimed.

 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.