The appellant occupied land on the shoreline of a lake, which the Crown claimed belonged to it as part of a three-chain reserve.
The appellant's predecessor acquired the land between 1884 and 1919, during which time the relevant statute stated the reserve was 'for fishing purposes'.
A 1919 amendment changed this to 'in full ownership by the Crown'.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 1919 amendment was declaratory and retroactive, meaning the Crown had always retained full ownership of the three-chain reserve, not merely a fishing servitude.
The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Crown's right to eject the appellant.
