Canadian real-estate casesAtlantic

Canadian real-estate cases
Atlantic Aviation v. Nova Scotia Light & Power
This court battle was engaged after Nova Scotia Power built high transmission towers on land adjacent to Atlantic Aviationís flying school. The court reviewed case law that suggested that deliberate or malicious obstruction of airspace was objectionable as a nuisance but other than that a land owner had a right to ìerect structures on his land in the exercise of his use and enjoyment of his land, even if the obstructions interfered with the free passage of aircraft taking off and landing on an adjoining airfield. The erection and use of the towers and wires by Nova Scotia Power was a lawful, reasonable and necessary use of the defendantís air space.î
Babcock v. Archibald
Babcock rented a piece of Beulah Carrís land. At one point, Mrs. Carr offered to sell the land to Babcock and they signed a memorandum to that effect. Mrs. Carrís daughter was informed about the sale and she felt the price was too low. She solicited a better offer from Mr. Clark, accepted it and title was transferred to Mr. Clark. Babcock asked the court to set aside the registration. The court noted that Babcock had not registered the memorandum on the title or taken legal action against Mrs. Carr, putting the action on title. Mr. Clark had never seen the memorandum and so he did not have ìthe clear and distinct notice necessary to displace his registered interest in the land.î
Bernstein of Leigh v. Skyview & General
Skyview was a company that took aerial pictures of property and then offered them for sale to the landowners. Baron Bernstein sued Skyview for trespass based on the well- known maxim cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum (who owns the land, also owns up to the heavens). The court threw Bernsteinís case out, saying that the maxim was not to be taken at face value. A land owner had rights only so far as practical and necessary to protect their structures or to use their land. To suggest that a person could restrict traffic over their land all the way to the heavens was unacceptable.
Gallant v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
Gallant and the Woolworth company owned land on opposite sides of a lane. Excavation of Woolworthís land during building work caused cracks in Gallantís roof and slanted the floor. Gallant sued Woolworth, claiming he had a right to lateral support. In finding for Gallant, this case reaffirmed three principles on the right to lateral support of land: (1) a land owner has a right to the lateral support of the neighboring land owned by another, so far as is necessary to uphold the soil in its natural state at its normal level; (2) when lateral support to land is removed, it is immaterial whether the act which caused it is negligent; and (3) the fact that the land is not contiguous does not preclude liability.