Ross Johnson

Owners of forested property commenced an action alleging neighbouring landowners constructed a roadway that encroached onto their land, cutting trees and altering the terrain.

The defendants denied liability and advanced a counterclaim for defamation arising from letters sent to neighbours describing the dispute.

The court accepted survey evidence establishing that a road approximately six metres wide encroached for nearly 200 metres onto the plaintiffs’ land and concluded the defendants intentionally continued using the road despite notice and a court order.

The court found the conduct constituted trespass and awarded compensatory damages for rehabilitation costs, survey expenses, and related losses, as well as damages at large and punitive damages.

The counterclaim in defamation was dismissed for lack of evidence of defamatory publication or reputational harm.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a cottage property.

The trial judge had found that a 1964 letter agreement was not an enforceable contract due to uncertainty in the property description, as part of the land described was on an adjoining Crown reserve.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the purchasers were entitled to specific performance for the portion of the land the vendor was able to convey.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in applying the Limitations Act, as the limitation period did not begin until a demand to convey was made.