Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
|
|
- Austen Patrick
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Attorney General (PEI) v. Thompson et al PESCAD 18 Date: Docket: S1-AD-0957 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND APPELLANT DONALD THOMPSON, HEATHER THOMPSON, IVAN BOSWALL, AND LUCILLE BOSWALL RESPONDENTS Before: The Honourable Chief Justice G.E. Mitchell The Honourable Mr. Justice J.A. McQuaid The Honourable Madam Justice L.K. Webber Appearances: Ruth M. DeMone, counsel for the Appellant John R. Diamond, counsel for the Respondents Place and Date of Hearing Place and Date of Judgment Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island April 1, 2003 Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island June 23, 2003 Written Reasons by: The Honourable Madam Justice L.K. Webber Concurred in by: The Honourable Chief Justice G.E. Mitchell The Honourable Mr. Justice J.A. McQuaid
2 Page: 2 Declaration - Rights-of-way The Fences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F- 7 places the onus on livestock farmers to fence their property to prevent livestock from straying upon adjacent property. The vague provisions of the Trails Act do not amend the Fences Act. The responsibility for fencing to prevent livestock from straying rests with the respondent livestock farmers. A farm crossing right is a right-of-way allowing crossing without impediment. Such right-of-way does not normally require positive actions such as gating by the party who granted the right-of-way. Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: Killam et al. v. Manuge et al. (1971), 21 D.L.R. (3d) 171 (N.S.S.C., A.D.) aff d 32 D.L.R. (3d) 49 (SCC); Canada Southern Railway Co. v. Clouse (1886), 13 S.C.R. 139 (SCC); STATUTES CONSIDERED: Fences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F-7; Trails Act R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. T-4.1, s. 5, s.7, s-s.8(2); Railway Act R.S.C. 1985, c. R-3 TEXTS REFERRED TO: Côté Pierre-André: The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3 rd Ed.) (Carswell 2000) Reasons for judgment: WEBBER J.A.: [1] The respondents sought from the trial division a declaratory order setting out the rights and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the operation and maintenance of the Confederation Trail ( the Trail ), essentially a linear park that runs through the property of the respondents, as this affects their adjacent properties. They also sought a similar declaration with respect to farm crossings and adjacent lands. They received an order containing the following declarations: THIS COURT DECLARES that, under the agreement of purchase and sale dated on or about April 25, 1994, the Province of Prince Edward Island did not assume CN s obligation regarding fencing under the Railway Act, S.C. 1984, c.r-2, as this obligation ceased when CN ceased to operate a railroad;
3 Page: 3 THIS COURT FURTHER DECLARES that it is in keeping with the principles of s. 7(c) of the Trails Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. T-4.1 and the practice of the Defendant that the Defendant continue to fence those portions of the Confederation Trail which border the Plaintiffs farms, such fences to be built and maintained to the standards set out in the Regulations to the Fences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F-7; THIS COURT FURTHER DECLARES that the Defendant provide convenient and proper farm crossings across the Confederation Trail including building gates wide enough for modern farm machinery, maintaining culverts to prevent run off or buildup of water onto adjacent property and maintaining crossing at an appropriate level so they can be used for the movement of cattle and farm equipment without difficulty; THIS COURT FURTHER DECLARES that it is the responsibility of the Defendant, under the Trails Act, supra, to operate the Confederation Trail in such a way as not to interfere with the needs and uses of adjacent lands of the Plaintiff; and THIS COURT FURTHER DECLARES that the Plaintiffs, while they have the right to utilize farm crossings, must do so in a responsible manner and cannot use the Confederation Trail as an extension of their farming operations. [2] The appellant appeals from the portions of the declaratory order that state that the appellant has the obligation to fence the Trail where it intersects the respondents property and has the obligation to provide convenient and proper farm crossings, including building gates and maintaining the crossings at an appropriate level for crossing by farm animals and equipment. DISPOSITION [3] I would allow the appeal. ANALYSIS [4] A declaration as to the rights of the parties with respect to the general supervision, operation and maintenance of the trail and farm crossings, as these relate to adjacent lands, requires a consideration and interpretation of the Trails Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. T-4.1, the Fences Act and Detention of Stray Livestock, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, Cap. F-7 (The Fences Act ) and the terms of the agreement by which the provincial government purchased the property in issue. These matters of contractual and statutory interpretation are questions of law reviewable by the court on a standard of correctness. [5] The Trails Act sets out certain guidelines:
4 Page: 4 5.(1) The Minister is responsible for the general supervision, construction, administration, operation and maintenance of the trail. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may appoint as his or her agent a trail manager to manage the trail in accordance with the management principles set out in section The trail manager shall manage the trail with respect for the following principles: (a) sustainable use of the trail as a public resource; (b) respect for, and enhancement of the unique quality of life in the province; (c) recognition of the needs and circumstances of properties adjacent to the trail and neighbouring communities (2) The Minister may, by notice, determine the recreational uses or activities permitted on the trail or part thereof. [6] Section 7 is referred to by the parties as providing the clearest direction with respect to the issues before the Court. However, this provision is itself vague. What does it mean for the Trail manager to act with respect for the principle of recognition of the needs and circumstances of properties adjacent to the Trail and neighbouring communities? [7] The first litigation involving these parties occurred in the fall of Unfortunately, in the intervening years the problems identified then have not been addressed in any systematic manner. The appellant has taken some fencing and gating actions that did not satisfy the respondents. In turn, in this action the respondents sought a declaration from the court of the rights of the parties as relating to the general supervision, operation and maintenance of the Trail, the farm crossings and adjacent lands... [8] While declarations containing some broad parameters of responsibility can be, and have been, issued, these declarations cannot address all of the potential issues between the parties and the many ways in which the adjacent lands of the parties could come into conflict. [9] By s.7 of the Trails Act the appellant has expressed a commitment that can be
5 Page: 5 interpreted to mean it will take measures to ensure that trail users don t trespass and that adjacent farmers operations won t be disturbed. However, there is no declaration from the court that can clarify the meaning of that commitment for all fact situations. Snowmobile use differs from walking use; bird-watching differs from hunting. Each situation may require a unique response from one or both parties. [10] The respondents were successful at trial in arguing that the vague statutory statements meant that there were positive obligations on the province to fence the Trail, especially for them, and to provide farm crossings that met their needs. [11] In support of this interpretation, the trial judge referred to the agreement of purchase and sale document between CNR and the province. In particular: 5. PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES The Parties agree that the conveyance of title to the Minister shall be subject to prior encumbrances by way of CN leases, CN licenses, CN approval letters, farm or private crossings, or other permitted uses. 6. ASSIGNMENT CN shall on the Date of Closing assign to the Minister all of CN s right, title and interest, together with all responsibilities and related obligations in respect of CN leases, CN licenses, and CN approval letters, as shown in Schedule B hereto, together with farm and private crossings, and other uses whether permitted or otherwise, of the lands, together with all benefits and obligations related thereto occurring or arising thereafter. [Emphasis added] [12] This reference to farm crossings together with all benefits and obligations related thereto occurring or arising thereafter was stated at trial to have somehow transferred to the provincial government the obligations of CNR with respect to fencing and farm crossings during the time it operated the railway. However, this document does nothing to define the nature of the obligations that might have been transferred. It is simply a statement that the province takes the property subject to whatever obligations there may be, if any. [13] The trial judge found that CNR s specific obligations with respect to farm crossings and fences were actually set out in the Railway Act R.S.C. 1985, c. R-3. She further found a finding which was not challenged on appeal -- that the province was not bound by these obligations because at the time the agreement of purchase and sale was signed in 1994, CNR was no longer subject to those provisions of the Railway Act. Those obligations ceased when
6 Page: 6 CNR abandoned the railways in [14] As a result, in 1994 when the province agreed to assume all responsibilities and related obligations with respect to these lands, I can find no evidence that any specific fencing or farm crossing responsibilities and related obligations existed at that time. Once the trial judge found that the responsibilities under the Railway Act were not being assumed by the province, those provisions in the agreement of purchase and sale were rendered effectively meaningless and of no support to the respondents claims. This leaves the Trails Act as the sole foundation for the respondents claims regarding fencing and farm crossings. (a) Fences [15] The appellant argues against the trial judge s interpretation of fencing responsibilities under the Trails Act on the basis that fencing issues for livestock farmers are specifically dealt with under the Fences and Stray Livestock Act, supra. The appellant relies upon the rule that states that general laws do not derogate from special ones. In return, the respondents cite the rule that states the more recent law takes precedence. [16] In his text, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (3 rd Ed.) (Carswell 2000), Pierre-André Côté states at p.359: In principle, the more recent statute takes precedence. But like every rule, this one has an exception. A more recent, general provision will not be construed as affecting an earlier, special provision: generalia specialibus non derogant. Here is a typical justification of this practice: When the Legislature has given its attention to a separate subject, and made provision for it, the presumption is that a subsequent general enactment is not intended to interfere with the special provision unless it manifests that intention very clearly. The priority granted to earlier special legislation over more recent general provisions can also be viewed as an application of the rule of effectivity. By giving priority to the special provisions, the two laws each produce an effect. The earlier one continues to deal with the special situations for which it was adopted, while the more recent, general law applies in all other cases. [17] In addition, both the above maxims are only applicable where there is found to be an inconsistency between the laws in question. In the instant case, the Fences Act and the Trails Act do not, on their face, deal with the same subject matter. As Côté notes, even statutes dealing with the same subject are not necessarily inconsistent. There is a presumption against
7 Page: 7 inconsistency and against implied repeal of one statute by another. As stated by Côté at pp.351-2: Two statutes on the same subject are presumed to complement rather than contradict each other, so as to avoid implicit repeal of one by the other Two statutes are considered inconsistent, and one is eventually deemed to repeal the other by implication,... if, but only if, it is so inconsistent with or repugnant to the other that the two are incapable of standing together. [Halsbury s Laws of England, 3 rd ed., Vol. 36, p.466] [18] And at pp : Because the legislature is presumed consistent, any apparent repugnancy should be avoided by reconciling the two enactments whenever possible: When there are two legislative enactments which at first sight appear to conflict with each other, the courts, quite apart from any constitutional aspect, must try to reconcile them before giving priority to the more recent enactment, and giving it the effect of a total or partial implicit repeal of the older provision. Most often, this is done by giving to both enactments a distinct scope or ambit, so that each produces effect without contradicting the other. In Gladysz v. Gross, the Pound District Act which held the owner of an animal liable for any damages it caused while wandering in a pound district, was apparently inconsistent with the Trespass Act, which held liable the owner of the damaged property, unless he had built a fence according to the Act s requirements. The court, allowing each statute its own distinct field of application, said the Trespass Act applied only outside pound districts. [19] I can see no inconsistency between the Trails Act and the Fences Act. The distinct ambit of the Fences Act is to deal with situations involving livestock farmers and their neighbors, with the intention of preventing livestock from straying from those farms. The Trails Act has a different purpose and can exist in a complementary fashion with the Fences Act. [20] I therefore must agree with the appellant that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the Trails Act as placing a primary onus on the appellant to fence the respondents property where it intersected the Trail. There can be no doubt that the clear intent of the Fences Act is to deal with fencing issues where farms with livestock abut other property. The responsibility is placed directly upon farmers with livestock to ensure that fencing is put in place to prevent livestock from straying off the farmers property. A provision of the Act requires an adjacent
8 Page: 8 landowner to contribute one-half of the cost of the materials required for the fencing, but nothing else. An independent person (the fence viewer) is established to adjudicate disputes arising under the Act, e.g. what is really needed for a proper fence in any particular case. [21] While it is true that the Confederation Trail did not exist at the time the Fences Act was passed, it is also true that no changes were made to that Act when the Trails Act became law. The vague generalizations in s.7 of the Trails Act do not amend the specific provisions of the Fences Act or any of the responsibilities placed by the Fences Act on livestock farmers. [22] The evidence produced at trial that the province had, in fact, put up fencing along the boundary between the Trail and the respondents property was used to support the position that the province had a legal obligation to put up the fencing. The province denies any obligation, stating that what it had done was simply a voluntary act of good will. [23] Even if the province s agents had put up the fence believing they were required to do so, that would not decide the province s responsibility under the Trails Act. Just as the province s refusal to act does not mean it has no responsibility to act, so too, the province s willingness to act does not mean there is a corresponding obligation to do so. [24] This is not to say that pursuant to s.7 of the Trails Act there may not be situations in which there is an obligation on the province to fence the Trail. The vagueness of the wording of that Act precludes any general rule one way or the other. Were it not for the existence of the Fences Act, an argument might well be made that for the safety of the Trail users as well as liability issues for adjacent owners, a fence must be put up by the provincial government where the Trail runs through a livestock farm. However, since there already exists a piece of legislation that specifically deals with livestock farms adjoining anyone in the world, that argument can t be made. This does not absolve the appellant from the responsibilities set out in s.7 of the Trails Act, and those responsibilities may include some additional fencing where the safety of trail users requires more than is required by the Fences Act. [25] However, the provisions of the Fences Act place the primary responsibility for fencing the property of the respondents, where it abuts the Trail, on the respondents in order to prevent the respondents livestock from straying upon adjacent trail lands. If parts of the respondents lands are not used for livestock farming, there is no issue of livestock straying onto trail lands and so no requirement on the respondents to fence those lands. (b) Farm Crossings [26] With respect to farm crossings, the appellant argues that there is no basis for the trial judge s findings with respect to a positive obligation on the government to provide gates and
9 Page: 9 otherwise make the crossings suitable for farm use. Again, evidence of what CNR used to do was cited as indicating the obligations assumed by the province when it took the property from CNR together with farm and private crossings or subject to prior encumbrances by way of... farm or private crossings. [27] The case law relevant to farm crossings states consistently that, unless altered by statute or specifically agreed to by contract, a farm crossing right is simply a legal right of way over the property in question. You may cross, but how you are to do it safely is your problem. [28] In the case of Killam et al. v. Manuge et al. (1971), 21 D.L.R. (3d) 171 (N.S.S.C., A.D.), Cooper J.A. writing for the majority found that although the railway treated the crossing in question as a farm crossing, it was in fact a private crossing. That case involved an action against the railway company for damages for personal injuries after a vehicle was struck by a train at a farm or private railway crossing leading to the plaintiff s house. Growth along the side of the railway right-of-way almost completely obstructed the view in the direction from which the train approached. The plaintiff claimed the railway had an obligation to clear this growth so as to provide adequate visibility for anyone using the crossing. Cooper J.A. stated at p.182: The question resolves itself into whether or not there was an obligation on the railway company when it installed the crossing or subsequently to ensure that those for whose use it had been installed had adequate visibility and, specifically, under the facts in the case at bar, adequate northern visibility at the western approach to the crossing. And at p.184: The significant fact is that there is nothing in the Railway Act imposing any obligation or duty on railway companies for maintenance of adequate visibility at either farm or private crossings. If, therefore, there is such an obligation or duty, it must arise under the common law. [29] He then reviews other cases alleging negligence by railways either in the operation of their railway or in the care taken of the property surrounding farm or private crossings and states at pp : In Bender v. Canada Southern R. Co. (1875), 37 U.C.Q.B. 25, Wilson J., delivering the judgment of the Court, said at p.30: The farm crossing is an easement, or right of way, or passage, which the occupier of the farm, has, for the purposes of his farm, over the soil of the railway company contained within the limits of the crossing.
10 Page: 10 In my opinion the same is true of a private crossing. It is stated in Halsbury s Laws of England, 3 rd ed., vol. 12, p.579, para.1256: As a general rule the owner of the servient tenement is under no liability to repair the way over which a right of way has been granted, for such a liability is not a condition incident by law to the grant of a right of way; nor is it even a legal obligation incumbent on the grantee. The person entitled to the use of the way must do such repairs as he requires, and he has a right of entry upon the servient tenement for that purpose. The right of repair is not limited to making good the defects in the original soil by subsidence or other natural causes, but includes the right of making the road reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was granted. The servient owner is not prevented from doing acts on his land the result of which may be to render the repair of the way more expensive. [30] He concludes at p.192: In the result, therefore, I am of the opinion that the railway company was under no duty to Mr. and Mrs. Manuge nor to Mr. Killam with respect to the maintenance of adequate visibility at the Killam Crossing. In having come to this conclusion I have taken into account the fact that the railway company had done some cleaning of ditches in the spring of 1967 and the evidence to which I have referred with respect to dirt having been placed on the embankment. The Killam Crossing was a private crossing. The right to pass and repass over it was a mere privilege to be exercised at the risk of those using it. Mr. Killam, members of his household and all others having the right to pass and repass over the crossing had to take the crossing as they found it and there was no obligation on the railway company as to visibility. I am also of the view that the railway company had the right to do what clearing or ditching within its right of way it deemed necessary and to dispose of the soil as was done.... [31] The view articulated here is one that reflects the general law regarding easements and the case law involving railways and farm crossings. While a grant of an easement by deed may by its terms include an obligation on the servient tenement (here the appellant) to maintain the easement, there is no evidence of any such grant in the instant case. The respondent appears to rely upon the fact that the railway carried out this maintenance and the fact that the Railway Act had imposed some obligation with respect to maintenance. However, there is no legal basis for the assertion that a successor in title, encumbered by an easement, has a positive obligation with respect to that easement unless such positive obligation is written into the original grant of easement.
11 Page: 11 [32] The case of Canada Southern Railway Co. v. Clouse (1886), 13 S.C.R. 139, indicates the strictness of this view. There a landholder from whom lands were taken for a railway had a verbal agreement with the railway, through its agent, for five farm crossings on special terms. The landholder wanted this agreement reduced to writing but was assured that the law would compel the company to build and maintain the required crossings. After a few years the railway decided not to continue with some of the agreed upon crossings and the Supreme Court of Canada found the landholder had no enforceable right for the specific terms he had thought were agreed upon. The statute law was the limit of his right. [33] In the instant case, the gating obligation of CNR was set out in the Railway Act. The trial judge found the Railway Act no longer applied to even CNR in 1994 because by then the railway had been abandoned in Prince Edward Island. The end result must be that there were no identifiable positive obligations existing in 1994 that the province was taking on when it purchased the old railway property. [34] The evidence at trial was that the province had put in gates at its own expense. The respondents felt these weren t good enough and more grading and other work was needed to make the crossing more convenient for farm crossing purposes. [35] However, the only legal obligation upon the appellant is to allow the respondents to cross the Trail. Since the Fences Act requires the respondents as livestock farmers to fence their property where it abuts the Trail, the respondents will also have to put in gates of their own at farm crossings if they want to make use of those crossings. [36] Once again, this does not lessen the general responsibility of the appellant under s.7 of the Trails Act. In a general sense, this obligation on the respondents to provide for their own crossings necessarily includes some responsibility on the part of the appellant in a practical way not to take actions that will impede or interfere with this crossing right, as stated in the fourth declaration made at trial. Grading that is too steep or lands washed out for lack of proper culverts might be classed as impediments of this type. Unfortunately, each situation will need to be assessed individually. CONCLUSION [37] The appeal is allowed as follows: a. As to the second declaration, this court declares that the primary responsibility for fencing the plaintiffs /respondents property where it abuts the property of the defendant/appellant lies with the plaintiffs/respondents in accordance with the provision of the Fences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act, R.S.P.E.I.
12 Page: , Cap. F-7; b. As to the third declaration, this court declares that with respect to farm crossings, the defendant/appellant is required to allow the plaintiffs/respondents free and unimpeded access to those portions of the Trail over which the plaintiffs/respondents hold farm crossing rights; the requirement to provide free and unimpeded access to farm crossings does not include any positive obligation to gate or take other actions to enhance the ability of the plaintiffs/respondents to utilize these rights-of-way. COSTS [38] The appellant has requested its costs on this appeal. However, the circumstances of this litigation must be taken into consideration. [39] In this case the confusion about the rights and responsibilities of the parties stems from the former use of the trail lands as railway lands. When these lands were used for railway purposes their maintenance was a railway responsibility, enforced by statute. The province took over those lands together with CN responsibilities and obligations and subject to farm crossings. Given this wording of the agreement of purchase and sale, it was not unreasonable for the respondents to seek a clarification from the court when the appellant refused to maintain the lands as the railway had maintained them. The vague wording of the Trails Act particularly s.7 did nothing to assist the respondents in trying to assess who was responsible for what. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate for each party to bear its own costs, both here and at trial. The Honourable Madam Justice L.K. Webber I AGREE: The Honourable Chief Justice G.E. Mitchell I AGREE: The Honourable Mr. Justice J.A. McQuaid
PLEASE NOTE Legislative Counsel Office not Table of Public Acts
c t TRAILS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference purposes
More informationCitation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International Inc. and Summerside Seafood Supreme Inc.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Summerside Seafood v. Gov PEI 2012 PESC 4 Date: January 30, 2012 Docket: S1-GS-20942 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Gabriel Elbaz, Sogelco International
More informationc t PUBLIC WORKS ACT
c t PUBLIC WORKS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationFATHERS OF CONFEDERATION BUILDINGS ACT
c t FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION BUILDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 9, 2010. It is intended for
More informationc t EXPROPRIATION ACT
c t EXPROPRIATION ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: J.J.C. (a young offender) v. R. 2003 PESCAD 26 Date: 20031020 Docket: S1-AD-0987 Registry: Charlottetown Publication
More informationFences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act
Fences and Detention of Stray Livestock Act CHAPTER 166 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 as amended by 2002, c. 1, ss. 9-18; 2016, c. 20, ss. 1-5 2016 Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Nova
More informationCitation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Duffy Const. v. Dennis Const Date: 20001205 2000 PESCTD 95 Docket: GSC-17689 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: DUFFY
More informationAn Overview of Virginia Fence Law. Jason Carter, Extension Agent, Augusta County
An Overview of Virginia Fence Law Jason Carter, Extension Agent, Augusta County Disclaimer The information presented in this presentation about Virginia Fence Law and legislation is meant to be for educational
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION CAROL ANN BLANCHARD
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISL IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Date: 19980107 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: CAROL ANN BLANCHARD AD-0631 BETWEEN: LESTINA BISO AD-0632 BETWEEN: EUNICE BRENTON AD-0634.../2
More informationCitation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Polar Foods v. Jensen Date: 20020924 2002 PESCTD 63 Docket: S-1-GS-18910 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: POLAR FOODS INTERNATIONAL
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationc t FARM PRACTICES ACT
c t FARM PRACTICES ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationReview of Trespass Related Legislation
Review of Trespass Related Legislation Saskatchewan s great prairies and parklands represent both a public and a private resource. Reasonable public access to these areas constitutes the foundation for
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationBILL NO. 21. Planning Statutes Amendment Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 3rd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 66 ELIZABETH II, 2017 BILL NO. 21 Hon. Robert J. Mitchell Minister of Communities, Land and Environment
More informationOCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT
c t OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: Ayangma v. The Attorney General (P.E.I.) 2004 PESCAD 11 Date: 20040623 Docket: S1-AD-1006 Registry: Charlottetown
More informationHANDOUT FOR MULMUR TOWNSHIP RATEPAYERS SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES May 01, 2013
HANDOUT FOR MULMUR TOWNSHIP RATEPAYERS SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES May 01, 2013 Council has established rules for fencing swimming pools that meet (and in some ways exceed) the minimum requirements of the
More informationCourt File No: SIGS SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT
Court File No: SIGS27017. BETWEEN: and SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (GENERAL SECTION) KEVIN J. ARSENAULT THE GOVERNMENT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, as represented by the MINISTER OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: E.R.I. Engine v. MacEachern 2011 PECA 2 Date: 20110107 Docket: S1-CA-1195 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: STEVEN
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Citation: Society of Lloyd s v. McNeill Date: 20030924 2003 PESCTD 76 Docket: S-1-GS-19948 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION In the Matter of
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CLARENCE-ROCKLAND BY-LAW NUMBER BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE HEIGHT AND DESCRIPTION OF LAWFUL FENCES
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CLARENCE-ROCKLAND BY-LAW NUMBER 2002-09 BEING A BY-LAW TO REGULATE HEIGHT AND DESCRIPTION OF LAWFUL FENCES WHEREAS paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 of Section 210 of the Municipal
More informationc t QUIETING TITLES ACT
c t QUIETING TITLES ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationADVERTISING ON ROADS AND RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACT 21 OF 1940
ADVERTISING ON ROADS AND RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACT 21 OF 1940 [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 20 MAY 1940] (Unless otherwise indicated) [ASSENTED TO 14 MAY 1940] (Signed by the Governor-General in Afrikaans) as amended
More informationSurface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues
Surface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu July 17, 2009 - by Roger McEowen Overview Surface water drainage disputes can arise
More informationBY-LAW NUMBER of - THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF BRANT. To regulate yard maintenance
BY-LAW NUMBER 97-17 - of - THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF BRANT To regulate yard maintenance WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Brant is desirous of enacting a bylaw to regulate
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE JOHN LEWIS
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.88 OF 1999 BETWEEN: FITZROY MC KREE Plaintiff and JOHN LEWIS Appearances: Paula David for the Plaintiff John Bayliss Frederick for
More informationThe Consumer Products Warranties Act
The Consumer Products Warranties Act being Chapter C-30 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979). NOTE: This consolidation is not official. Amendments have been incorporated
More informationc t MECHANICS LIEN ACT
c t MECHANICS LIEN ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to January 1, 2009. It is intended for information and reference
More informationFences -- Legal Enclosures -- Enclosure of Domestic Animals
ROBERT T. STEPHAN ATTORNEY GENERAL February 16, 1987 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 87-28 The Honorable Joseph F. Norvell State Senator, 37th District State Capitol, Room 452-E Topeka, Kansas 66612 Re: Fences
More informationADULT PROTECTION ACT
c t ADULT PROTECTION ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 15, 2016. It is intended for information and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Widelitz v. Cox & Palmer 2010 PESC 43 Date: 20101022 Docket: S1-GS-23705 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Kenneth Widelitz Plaintiff And: Cox & Palmer Defendant
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 19980707 Docket: GSC-16600 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PRIVATE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, R.S.P.E.I. 1988,
More informationCity of South St. Paul Dakota County, Minnesota. Ordinance No AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH XCEL ENERGY
City of South St. Paul Dakota County, Minnesota Ordinance No. 1290 AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH XCEL ENERGY WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Gas Franchise Ordinance ( Franchise
More informationCOLORADO BRAND LAWS COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TITLE 35. AGRICULTURE III--LIVESTOCK ARTICLE 43. BRANDING AND HERDING
COLORADO BRAND LAWS COLORADO REVISED STATUTES TITLE 35. AGRICULTURE III--LIVESTOCK ARTICLE 43. BRANDING AND HERDING 35-43-101. Brands on livestock--evidence It is lawful to mark cattle and horses with
More informationGUIDANCE NOTE: LIVESTOCK ON PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
Date30/07/2009 Ref: GN03-09 No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this publication
More informationNO. 46,890-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered June 13, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 46,890-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * JERRY
More informationBEING A BY-LAW to regulate Election Signs and to repeal By-law RE
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-050-RE BEING A BY-LAW to regulate Election Signs and to repeal By-law 2017-041-RE WHEREAS subsection 11(3), paragraph 1 of the Municipal
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Purdy v. Bishop, 2017 NSCA 84
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Purdy v. Bishop, 2017 NSCA 84 Date: 20171128 Docket: CA 453201 Registry: Halifax Between: Bruce and Frances Purdy v. Appellants Evelyn Bishop, Carole Black, Johanne
More informationSNOWMOBILE. The Snowmobile Act. being
1 SNOWMOBILE c. S-52 The Snowmobile Act being Chapter S-52 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978, (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1982-83, c.16; 1983,
More informationUniversity of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. An Agricultural Law Research Project. States Fence Laws. State of Virginia
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States Fence Laws State of Virginia www.nationalaglawcenter.org States Fence Laws STATE OF VIRGINIA VA. Code Ann. 33.1-202
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Gosselin v. Shepherd, 2010 BCSC 755 April Gosselin Date: 20100527 Docket: S104306 Registry: New Westminster Plaintiff Mark Shepherd and Dr.
More informationCHAPTER 17:01 STATISTICS
CHAPTER 17:01 STATISTICS ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title 2. Interpretation 3. Matters as to which statistics may be collected 4. Census of production, distribution, agriculture, etc. 5.
More informationCROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT
c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and
More informationIn the Court of Appeal of Alberta
In the Court of Appeal of Alberta Citation: Liu v Hamptons Golf Course Ltd., 2017 ABCA 303 Between: Jiamei Liu Date: 20170922 Docket: 1701-0118-AC; 1701-0136-AC Registry: Calgary Respondent (Plaintiff)
More informationThe Public Guardian and Trustee Act
Consolidated to September 23, 2011 1 The Public Guardian and Trustee Act being Chapter P-36.3* of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1983 (effective April 1, 1984) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan,
More informationLUCY MAUD MONTGOMERY FOUNDATION ACT
c t LUCY MAUD MONTGOMERY FOUNDATION ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information
More informationCONSOLIDATED WITH BY-LAW THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MULMUR BY-LAW NO FENCE BY-LAW
CONSOLIDATED WITH BY-LAW 17-2013 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MULMUR BY-LAW NO. 14-2006 FENCE BY-LAW WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, s. 8, provides that a Municipality has the capacity,
More informationCattle Improvement Consolidation Ordinance 14 of 1941 (OG 898) came into force on date of publication: 22 April 1941
Cattle Improvement Consolidation Ordinance 14 of 1941 (OG 898) came into force on date of publication: 22 April 1941 as amended by Cattle Improvement Consolidation Ordinance Amendment Proclamation 14 of
More informationCitation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Action Press v. PEITF Date: 20020114 2002 PESCTD 02 Docket: GSC-18145 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: CARRUTHERS ENTERPRISES
More informationNUISANCE (PRIVATE) ENGLAND AND WALES
Legal Topic Note LTN 67 October 2014 NUISANCE (PRIVATE) ENGLAND AND WALES The Civil wrong (tort) of Private Nuisance 1. This Legal Topic Note deals with the subject of private nuisance. A separate Legal
More informationCOUNTY OF CAYUGA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2018
COUNTY OF CAYUGA LOCAL LAW NO. OF THE YEAR 2018 A LOCAL LAW ESTABLISHING THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND REPEALING LOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF THE YEAR OF 2014 AND LOCAL LAW NO. 1 OF THE YEAR 2005.
More informationBY-LAW NO This By-law may be cited as Camrose County Road Use By-law
BY-LAW NO.1141 BY-LAW NO.1141 A By-law of Camrose County in the Province of Alberta introduced for the controlling and regulating the use of highways within Camrose County. WHEREAS by virtue of the authority
More informationThe Watershed Associations Act
1 c. W-11 The Watershed Associations Act being Chapter W-11 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1979, c.81; 1979-80,
More informationDRAINAGE ACT Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter D.17
Amended by: 1992, c. 32, s. 8; 1998, c. 18, Sched. A, s. 1; 1999, c. 12, Sched. A, s. 9; Definitions 1. In this Act, DRAINAGE ACT Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, Chapter D.17 2001, c. 9, Sched. A; 2002,
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF EAST GWILLIMBURY BY-LAW NUMBER
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF EAST GWILLIMBURY BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-044 Being a by-law to manage and regulate election signs and other election advertising devices within the Town of East Gwillimbury WHEREAS
More informationAQUIA HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
AQUIA HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS 1. Use Said lots shall be used exclusively for residential purposes except those lots that may be designated, subjected to rezoning
More informationPage: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION
Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION Citation: CUPE v. Residential Services Inc. 2004 PESCAD 2 Date: 20040128 Docket: S1-AD-0997 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN:
More informationIowa Fence Law. January 2008 Revised: July 3, by Roger A. McEowen*
Iowa Fence Law 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu January 2008 Revised: July 3, 2012 - by Roger A. McEowen* Overview Issues involving partition fences are the cause of many
More informationCITY OF ENID RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT
CITY OF ENID RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT This Right-of-Way Agreement ( Agreement ) is entered into by and between the City of Enid, an Oklahoma Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and hereinafter
More informationOFFICE CONSOLIDATION FENCE BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER By-Law Number Date Passed Section Amended
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION FENCE BY-LAW BY-LAW NUMBER 119-05 Passed by Council on November 28, 2005 Amendments: By-Law Number Date Passed Section Amended 55-07 April 23, 2007 Delete Private Swimming Pool Definition
More informationOFFICIAL ORDINANCE SOO LINE TRAIL RULES AND SAFETY REGULATIONS PINE COUNTY, MN
OFFICIAL ORDINANCE SOO LINE TRAIL RULES AND SAFETY REGULATIONS PINE COUNTY, MN AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE USE OF THE ABANDONED SOO LINE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF PINE COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent
More informationPLEASE NOTE. authority of the Queen s Printer for the province should be consulted to determine the authoritative statement of the law.
c t PLANNING ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and reference
More informationWANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL WANGANUI DISTRICT BYLAW
1 WANGANUI DISTRICT COUNCIL WANGANUI DISTRICT BYLAW 2010 ANIMAL CONTROL The objectives of this Bylaw are to: EXPLANATORY NOTE Regulate the keeping of animals to protect the public from nuisance, maintain
More informationUniversity of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. An Agricultural Law Research Project. States Fence Laws. State of Illinois
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States Fence Laws State of Illinois www.nationalaglawcenter.org States Fence Laws STATE OF ILLNOIS 510 Ill. Comp. Stat.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Noël Ayangma. Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI Human Rights Commission
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Ayangma v Infoway 2009 PESC 24 Date: 20090814 Docket: S1-GS-22233 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: And: Noël Ayangma Canada Health Infoway Inc. PEI
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF CHICAGO INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST
AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF CHICAGO INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST ARTICLE I CORPORATION Section 1.1 Corporate Name. The name of the corporation shall be Chicago Infrastructure Trust, an Illinois not-for-profit
More informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationVillage of Alliance Bylaw Municipal Trees and Shrubs
Village of Alliance Bylaw 2015-06 Municipal Trees and Shrubs A BYLAW OF THE VILLAGE OF ALLIANCE IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA FOR THE PLANTING AND PROTECTING OF TREES AND SHRUBS ON ANY HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC PLACE.
More informationCity of Otsego Zoning Ordinance Section 16 General Building and Performance Requirements
City of Otsego Zoning Ordinance Section 16 General Building and Performance Requirements 20-16-6: FENCES: Fences shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following: A. Permit Required: It is unlawful
More informationORDINANCE CITY OF DUNDAS RICE COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA GAS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE 2013 02 CITY OF DUNDAS RICE COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA GAS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE An Ordinance Granting to Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, D/B/A Xcel Energy Its Successors
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 198 OF 1998 BETWEEN: AMOS STEWART Plaintiff and Appearances: John Bayliss Frederick for the Plaintiff Olin Dennie for the Defendants
More informationCourt Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) G1143 (2014 NLTD(G) 131)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40 Date: August 4, 2016 Docket: 14/96 BETWEEN: TANYA TUCK APPELLANT AND: SUPREME HOLDINGS
More information(Bill No. 29) An Act to Respond to the Legalization of Cannabis
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 3rd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 67 ELIZABETH II, 2018 (Bill No. 29) An Act to Respond to the Legalization of Cannabis Hon. J. Heath
More informationBILL NO. 30. An Act to Amend the Plebiscites Act
HOUSE USE ONLY CHAIR: WITH / WITHOUT 2nd SESSION, 65th GENERAL ASSEMBLY Province of Prince Edward Island 65 ELIZABETH II, 2016 BILL NO. 30 An Act to Amend the Plebiscites Act Honourable H. Wade MacLauchlan
More informationDATED 201? CANAL & RIVER TRUST acting as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust. - and - NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT
DATED 201? CANAL & RIVER TRUST acting as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust - and - NETWORK ACCESS AGREEMENT for Marinas and Offline Moorings LEGAL DEPARTMENT CANAL & RIVER TRUST FIRST FLOOR
More informationCORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF PETERBOROUGH BY-LAW NO
BY-LAW NO. 2007 55 A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE PLACING, ERECTING OR ALTERING OF SIGNS UPON OR ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROADS. WHEREAS the Municipal Act, 2001, c. 25, s. 59 (as amended) provides that an upper-tier
More informationLICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE GRADE CROSSING
READING BLUE MOUNTAIN & NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE GRADE CROSSING This agreement, dated as of this 1 st day of between READING BLUE MOUNTAIN & NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a
More informationPLEASE NOTE Legislative Counsel Office not Table of Public Acts
c t LAND SURVEY ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference
More informationELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 99. CITY OF MEDICINE LAKE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ELECTRIC FRANCHISE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 99. CITY OF MEDICINE LAKE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TONORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ITS SUCCESSORS
More informationPLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
More informationPROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION
BP-268E PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION Prepared by: David Johansen Law and Government Division October 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION FORMER PROPOSALS TO ENTRENCH PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION
More informationCitation: Powell Estate Date: PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: Powell Estate Date: 20021202 2002 PESCTD 81 Docket: ES-1339(P) & ES-1342(P) Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION IN THE MATTER of the
More informationThe Honourable Madam Justice Linda K. Webber
Date: 1 9981009 Docket: CSC-15372 Registy: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION GRAHAM TUPLIN AND: APPLICANT (APPELLANT) REGISTRAR, INDIAN & NORTHERN AFFAIRS
More informationNumber 4 of Telecommunications Services (Ducting and Cables) Act 2018
Number 4 of 2018 Telecommunications Services (Ducting and Cables) Act 2018 Number 4 of 2018 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES (DUCTING AND CABLES) ACT 2018 Section 1. Definitions CONTENTS 2. Vesting of ownership
More informationThe Irrigation Act, 1996
1 IRRIGATION, 1996 c. I-14.1 The Irrigation Act, 1996 being Chapter I-14.1 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1996 (effective January 1, 1997) as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2000, c.52; 2002,
More informationPROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATES ACT
c t PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF ESTATES ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for
More informationThe Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources Act
TOURISM AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES c. D-24 1 The Department of Tourism and Renewable Resources Act being Chapter D-24 of The Revised Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1978 (effective February 26, 1979). NOTE: This
More informationKEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW 2016
KEEPING OF ANIMALS, POULTRY AND BEES BYLAW 2016 The Local Government Act 2002 allows the Council to control the keeping of animals, poultry and bees within the District. The Council has a Keeping of Animals,
More informationTHE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND BOWS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF KING
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2014-04 A BY-LAW TO REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND BOWS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF KING WHEREAS pursuant to Subsection 11(2) para 6. of the Municipal
More informationCHAPTER 20:03 NATIONAL TRUST ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTION
3 CHAPTER 20:03 NATIONAL TRUST ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTION SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Establishment and Constitution of the. 4. Tenure of office of members. 5. Functions of the. 6. Remuneration
More informationProvince of Alberta STRAY ANIMALS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter S-20. Current as of January 1, Office Consolidation
Province of Alberta STRAY ANIMALS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of January 1, 2010 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer Suite 700, Park Plaza
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 156 Article 7 1
Article 7. Construction of Improvement. 156-83. Superintendent of construction. The board of drainage commissioners shall appoint a competent drainage engineer of good repute as superintendent of construction.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal
More informationUniversity of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. An Agricultural Law Research Project. States Fence Laws. State of Kentucky
University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture An Agricultural Law Research Project States Fence Laws State of Kentucky www.nationalaglawcenter.org States Fence Laws STATE OF KENTUCKY Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
More information