...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Environmental Law Reports >Douglas Lake Cattle Company v. Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club
【24h】

Douglas Lake Cattle Company v. Nicola Valley Fish and Game Club

机译：道格拉斯湖牛公司v。尼古拉山谷鱼和游戏俱乐部

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Transportation-Highways and streets - Establishment and opening - Dedication - Miscellaneous-Litigation concerned public access to two lakes over plaintiff's property - M and S Lakes were accessed over land conveyed by Crown grants, but there was no specific reservation of roads or trails in wording of Crown grants - Maps attached to Crown grants depicted road with dotted black line, shoreline of M Lake as solid black line, and dotted line around S Lake - Field notes indicated S Lake did not then extend beyond specific lot and map annexed to Crown grant of adjacent lot indicated Slake did not cross into adjacent lot - M Lake was fed by W Creek - Plaintiff brought action for determination of issues concerning disputed road traversing plaintiffs lands and ownership of fish in lakes - Trial judge relied on 1948 aerial photograph that depicted S Lake covering larger portion of lot, but 1948 was year of flooding -Trial judge found trail depicted on map was intended to be exemption from Crown grant or was common law dedication by its nature, continued use, and importance to Indigenous community - Trial judge found, among other things, that road was 20.1168 metres wide, trail was public way, and public had right of access to S Lake via road - Plaintiff appealed - Appeal allowed in part -Trial judge's declarations with respect to road, trail, and boundaries of S Lake were set aside - Declarations were made that all lands above natural boundaries of lakes were plaintiffs private lands, and there was no right of public access across plaintiffs property to lakes other than by way of W Creek - Trial judge did not err in concluding road was 20.1168-metre-wide - There was no support for conclusions that trail was intended to be exemption from Crown grant or that trail was common law dedication - Elements of common law dedication were not established - Evidence supported conclusion that road did not reach pre-flooding natural boundaries of lakes - Trial judge erred in law by setting boundaries of S Lake without applying statutory description of "natural boundary" that required consideration of "common and usual" presence of water, continued in all ordinary years - Trial judge erred by discounting certified 1889 survey and expert evidence on pre-flooding natural boundaries of S Lake that relied on that survey - Trial judge erred in concluding 1948 aerial photographs were best evidence of natural boundary of S Lake, without evidence that photographs permitted him to see where presence of water depicted continued high-water mark of lake as opposed to flood level, or that 1948 was ordinary year.
机译：运输高速公路和街道 - 建立和开放 - 奉献 - 杂项诉讼相关的公众在冠军拨款的土地上访问了原告的两次湖泊，但在Crown Grants传达的土地上被访问，但措辞中没有具体的道路或踪迹Crown Grants - 附加到Crown Grants所描绘的道路，带有虚线的黑线，M湖的海岸线作为纯黑线，以及S湖周围的虚线 - 现场笔记指示的S湖没有超越特定批次和地图展示冠军在邻近的地段表明苍蝇没有交叉进入相邻的批次 - M湖被W Creekiff喂养 - 原告带来了确定有关争议道路的问题的行动，遍历湖泊的土地和湖泊的鱼类所有权 - 试验法官依靠1948年被描绘的空中照片湖覆盖较大的湖泊，但是1948年是洪水的洪水的一年，发现地图上描绘的踪迹旨在豁免乌鸦否授予或者是普通法致力于其性质，持续使用和对土着社区的重视 - 在其他事情中发现，该道路宽20.1168米，小径是公开的，公众有权通过湖泊道路 - 原告吸引 - 申请部分 - 在湖泊的道路，踪迹和湖边的宣言中允许的申诉被搁置 - 宣言，湖泊的所有土地上面都是原告的私人土地，没有权利。没有权利在凭借W克里克的公共机构到湖泊的公共机构 - 审判法官在结束路上没有错误是20.1168米 - 宽 - 没有支持得出的结论旨在豁免皇冠授权或那条踪迹是普通法奉献精神 - 普通法奉献的要素尚未建立 - 证据支持的结论，道路没有达到湖泊的预洪水自然界限 - 审判法官通过setti犯了法律S湖的NG界限而不应用“自然界”的法定描述，要求考虑水的“常见和通常”存在的水，在所有普通的年度继续进行 - 试验法官通过折扣认证的1889年调查和专家证据进行预洪水自然界限靠在该调查的湖泊中，审判法官在结束1948年的空中照片中是S湖的自然边界的最佳证据，没有证据表明允许他看到水的存在，所描绘的水持续的湖泊的高水位，而不是洪水级别，或1948年是普通的一年。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号