Damages claim over Litchfield property dispute goes to court
Sophie Kuijper Dickson, LJI Journalist
A lawsuit filed against the Municipality of Litchfield had its first day in court last Thursday at the Campbell’s Bay courthouse.
The three plaintiffs, siblings Colleen McGuire, Michael McGuire and Mary Ellen McGuire, are suing Litchfield for nearly $15,000 in damages they claim arose over the course of a property dispute with the municipality that began in 2015.
The conflict can be traced back to 2007 when a land surveyor listed a lot as belonging to the Municipality of Litchfield which the plaintiffs believed to belong to their father, Aloysius McGuire.
The McGuire’s statement of claim submitted to the court states that in 2015, when they learned of the municipality’s “intent to sell or grant servitude” to the lot to neighbouring property owners, the McGuires tried to prove to the municipality, using deeds and other legal documents, that this property should still be under their father’s name.
The claim says that this, and every subsequent attempt to prove ownership of the lot, was rejected by the municipality.
In the spring of 2021, after many years of back and forth over opposing claims as to who is the rightful owner of the lot, the cadastral registration division of Quebec’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests (MERN) prompted the original surveyor to revisit the survey report he did in 2007.
According to the plaintiffs’ statement of claim, this reconsideration found Aloysius McGuire to be the rightful owner of the lot. In June 2021, following the municipality’s appeal of this finding, it was reconfirmed that Aloysius McGuire was the owner, which effectively ended the dispute.
The McGuire siblings, represented in court by Mary Ellen McGuire, are now claiming $14,780.30 in damages attributed to legal fees associated with proving the property did indeed belong to their father, as well as other expenses associated with repairing a pump house building on their property they say was damaged over the course of the dispute.
The plaintiffs are also claiming moral and exemplary damages to the family over the years of the dispute.
“This claim arises from the undue hardship, stress, and inconvenience caused to our family between the years 2015 and 2023, during which time the Municipality, acting in bad faith, refused to acknowledge our rightful ownership of lot 3 685 570,” the McGuires’ statement of claim reads.
The statement introduces an almost 300-page file prepared by Mary Ellen McGuire that includes email correspondence obtained through an access to information request, involving municipal director general Julie Bertrand, Mayor Colleen Larivière, and several of the owners of the properties adjacent to the lot in question.
None of the plaintiffs’ allegations have been proven in court.
For its part, the defendant, the Municipality of Litchfield, represented in court by Director General Bertrand, denies the allegations and says its actions were based only on information it had that indicated it was the owner of the lot.
“The defendant had no reason to question the validity of the cadastral plan and the presumption of ownership subject thereto,” Litchfield’s statement of defence states.
“The defendant cannot be held responsible for the error and the resulting alleged prejudice, caused by the [ . . . ] surveyor, acting on behalf of MERN during the cadastral renovation given that the law explicitly provides that it is MERN’s responsibility to revise and amend the cadastral plan,” the statement continues.
“Thus, since the defendant has no jurisdiction in matters of cadastral renovation, its inaction, as alleged by the plaintiffs, cannot be held against it as a cause for prejudice to the plaintiffs.”
Litchfield has also called in the Attorney General of Quebec, representing MERN, to intervene in the case and to “to indemnify the Municipality of Litchfield for any condemnation that may be pronounced against her,” according to a document submitted to the court by Litchfield.
At Thursday’s first sitting at the courthouse in Campbell’s Bay, the municipality presented evidence that the entire case might in fact be inadmissible.
Bertrand said code 1112.1 of the municipal act states “No action in damages may be instituted against a municipality unless [ . . . ] the action is instituted within six months after the date on which the cause of action arose.”
Bertrand held that as the plaintiffs only filed their claim more than six months after what Bertrand considered to be the date of harm, on Aug. 10, 2021, when the municipality’s lawyer stated it would not contest the MERN decision, the case should not be considered.
For her part, McGuire disputed the Aug. 2021 date of harm identified by Bertrand. She said that for her family, this case was not only about the question of who owned the lot, a dispute resolved on Aug. 10, but also about the ways in which the municipality, in her opinion, abused its power and breached its code of ethics, the harm from which lasted beyond Aug. 10, 2021.
The judge, Honourable Serge Laurin, said it will likely take him several weeks to consider the submitted material and decide whether or not to admit the case to the court. He noted that if the case is admitted, proceedings would likely take several days.
Damages claim over Litchfield property dispute goes to court Read More »