Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    2024 BCSC 197

    Uploaded by

    iandmydisciples
    The court document summarizes a case between the Province of British Columbia and Curtis and Deanne Querin regarding ownership of a disputed roadway running through the Querin's property. In previous reasons, the court found the roadway was a public highway owned by the Province, but it was a marginal case. The Province is now seeking costs, relying on three settlement offers the Querins rejected. However, the court determines the Querins' decision to defend the claim was not unreasonable, considering the settlement offers would have transferred more land than declared public and the value of the land to the Querins exceeded the market. The court orders the parties to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2024 BCSC 197

    Uploaded by

    iandmydisciples
    26 views4 pages
    The court document summarizes a case between the Province of British Columbia and Curtis and Deanne Querin regarding ownership of a disputed roadway running through the Querin's property. In previous reasons, the court found the roadway was a public highway owned by the Province, but it was a marginal case. The Province is now seeking costs, relying on three settlement offers the Querins rejected. However, the court determines the Querins' decision to defend the claim was not unreasonable, considering the settlement offers would have transferred more land than declared public and the value of the land to the Querins exceeded the market. The court orders the parties to bear their own costs.

    Original Title

    2024bcsc197

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court document summarizes a case between the Province of British Columbia and Curtis and Deanne Querin regarding ownership of a disputed roadway running through the Querin's property. In previous reasons, the court found the roadway was a public highway owned by the Province, but it was a marginal case. The Province is now seeking costs, relying on three settlement offers the Querins rejected. However, the court determines the Querins' decision to defend the claim was not unreasonable, considering the settlement offers would have transferred more land than declared public and the value of the land to the Querins exceeded the market. The court orders the parties to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    26 views4 pages

    2024 BCSC 197

    Uploaded by

    iandmydisciples
    The court document summarizes a case between the Province of British Columbia and Curtis and Deanne Querin regarding ownership of a disputed roadway running through the Querin's property. In previous reasons, the court found the roadway was a public highway owned by the Province, but it was a marginal case. The Province is now seeking costs, relying on three settlement offers the Querins rejected. However, the court determines the Querins' decision to defend the claim was not unreasonable, considering the settlement offers would have transferred more land than declared public and the value of the land to the Querins exceeded the market. The court orders the parties to bear their own costs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

    Citation: British Columbia v. Querin,


    2024 BCSC 197
    Date: 20240208

    2024 BCSC 197 (CanLII)


    Docket: S23692
    Registry: Dawson Creek

    Between:

    His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia

    Plaintiff

    And

    Curtis Querin and Deanne Querin


    Defendants

    Before: The Honourable Justice Kirchner

    Reasons for Judgment on Costs

    Counsel for the Plaintiff: G.N. Rudyk


    L.F. de Lima
    J. McKay

    Counsel for the Defendants: J.G. Frame

    Place and Dates of Trial: Dawson Creek, B.C.


    September 13-15 and
    18-22, 2023
    Written Submissions on Costs by Plaintiff: December 14, 2023
    January 19, 2024
    Written Submissions on Costs by January 18, 2024
    Defendants:
    Place and Date of Judgment: Dawson Creek, B.C.
    February 8, 2024
    British Columbia v. Querin Page 2

    [1] In reasons for judgment dated November 15, 2023 (2023 BCSC 1994), I
    found that a road (the “Disputed Roadway”) that runs across the defendants’
    property just inside its northern boundary is a public highway under s. 42(1) of the
    Transportation Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 44 and is thus owned by the Province. I found

    2024 BCSC 197 (CanLII)


    the Province had established public use of, and public expenditures on, the Disputed
    Roadway sufficient to establish it as a public highway under s. 42(1). In doing so, I
    noted (at para. 183) that it was a marginal case that turned substantially on the
    standard implied by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Campbell v. Thomson, 1990
    CanLII 2332 (B.C.C.A.), which I suggested represents the “low-water mark for public
    use”. At para. 169, I agreed with counsel for the defendants that the evidence in this
    case lacked the “layered history and diverse groups of people” using the road as
    seen in most cases where sufficient public use is established, other than Campbell
    which is something of a unique case, though binding on me.

    [2] With respect to costs, I invited submissions but said I was inclined to order
    the parties bear their own costs. Given that this was a marginal case, I found it was
    not unreasonable for the Querins to defend against the Province’s claim in an effort
    to protect an area of their land they reasonably but unsuccessfully maintained was
    part of their property. In making those comments, I was not aware of the Province’s
    offers to settle.

    [3] The Province now seeks its costs, relying largely on its offers to settle. It
    points to three offers that it argues the Querins unreasonably rejected. It argues that
    a party who rejects a reasonable offer to settle should usually face some costs
    sanction: Wafler v. Trinh 2014 BCCA 95; Evans v. Jensen, 2011 BCCA 279 at para
    41.

    [4] The first offer to settle proposed that the Querins agree to transfer to the
    Province a 25-metre-wide roadway encompassing the Disputed Roadway in
    exchange for $5,000.

    [5] The second offer to settle was for the proposed 25-metre-wide roadway to be
    surveyed and its fair market value appraised independently. The Province would pay
    British Columbia v. Querin Page 3

    the Querins the appraised value plus $25,000 towards their legal costs to date. In
    exchange, the Querins would transfer title of the road to the Province. The parties
    would be bound by the result of the appraisal.

    [6] The third offer was a renewal of the second which had expired.

    2024 BCSC 197 (CanLII)


    [7] I note that in all three offers the Province also offered to waive its claim to
    $4,727.25 which was its cost to remove materials Mr. Querin had placed on or
    across the Disputed Roadway to impede access. However, I dismissed that part of
    the Province’s claim on the basis that the Province also removed materials
    belonging to Mr. Querin that sat outside of the travelled portion of the roadway. In
    other words, the Province took Mr. Querin’s materials off his private property without
    his consent. In view of that overreach, I declined to award the Province damages.
    Thus, its offer to waive this claim is, at best, a neutral factor in assessing the impact
    of the settlement offers on costs.

    [8] Despite the Province’s offers to settle, I remain of the view that the Querins
    decision to defend the claim was not unreasonable. (I refer here to the litigation and
    not to Mr. Querin’s self-help actions in blocking the roadway.) In addition to my
    earlier view on costs expressed in the reasons for judgment, I would add the
    following.

    [9] First, the Province’s offer to take a 25-metre-wide roadway would likely have
    taken more of the Querins’ property than what results from my declaration, which
    was confined to the travelled surface of the road. A wider roadway could also
    potentially have opened up the road to wider use than is possible within the limits of
    my declaration.

    [10] Second, it seems unlikely that the market value of a 25-metre strip of land in
    that area would be significant. The strip of land has more value to the Querins
    personally than it does to the market.

    [11] Third, the Province sought a declaration that the Disputed Roadway is a two-
    lane public highway but I declined to grant the declaration, finding instead that the
    British Columbia v. Querin Page 4

    public highway is limited to the travelled surface. Thus, the Province was not wholly
    successful in obtaining the relief it sought and, as I said earlier, the scope of the
    declaration I have made could limit the use that might be made of the road
    compared to what the Province had sought. In this sense, the Querins had some

    2024 BCSC 197 (CanLII)


    success in confining the practical effect of the Court’s declaration.

    [12] For these reasons, I conclude that a just result is for the parties to bear their
    own costs.

    “Kirchner J.”

    You might also like