Case information

Property — Ownership — Determination of boundaries — Riparian rights — Fishing right — Authentic act: pillar of legal certainty and of public confidence? — Applicability of art. 3027 C.C.Q. in non-renewed territory — In concreto unilateral undertaking: stare decisis, res judicata, personal or real right? — Exclusive fishing right for owner in expressly granted tidal river or public fishing right?

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

For 30 years, the parties, who are owners of contiguous lots in Lévis, have judicially claimed riparian rights in the basin of the Chaudière river in a series of proceedings. Relations between the neighbours have been very strained, particularly when docks were taken out or put in the water. The disputes between the parties have come before numerous successive judges over the years.

In the avalanche of questions and issues raised by the parties before the Quebec Superior Court, the trial judge identified the contentious points he would examine: (1) determination of boundaries, (2) riparian rights, (3) fishing rights and (4) the claims for damages and abuse. The judge declared that the boundary of the respondents’ lots corresponded to the line in the Quebec cadastre, division of Lévis, and ordered boundary-marking operations for the lots, costs to be shared between the parties. In his conclusions, the trial judge also made several orders directing all parties to respect everyone’s rights of ownership and riparian rights. He also declared that the applicant Mr. Thibeault does not have an exclusive fishing right. Finally, he rejected all the pecuniary claims of the parties and found that each of them had to bear their own extrajudicial fees, legal costs and expert fees. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ main appeal, being of the opinion that the trial judge had not committed an error in his decision. It allowed the respondents’ incidental appeal in part for the sole purpose of modifying para. 279 of the trial judgment; and it dismissed the incidental appeal in other respects.