Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellants failed to establish ownership or a legal right to occupy land containing the renovated “Fish House” structure.

• Claims based on adverse possession, prescriptive easement, and proprietary estoppel were rejected as lacking legal and evidentiary support.

• Trial court found the use of the land was permissive and that access rights were limited and lawfully withdrawn.

• Appellants alleged judicial bias but did not present credible evidence, and the court emphasized the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

• The motion for a stay pending appeal was denied due to the absence of arguable appeal issues and failure to prove irreparable harm.

• Damages, including punitive damages, were upheld and not found to be excessive or legally flawed.

Background and facts of the case

The dispute centered on a property in Nova Scotia where a structure known as the "Fish House" had stood since the 1970s. Although originally a dilapidated shack used for fishing-related purposes, Crystal (Stanton) Tessier later renovated it into a cottage. The land itself was owned by Stanley Stanton, the respondent, who took legal ownership in 1987. While Crystal and her family claimed entitlement to the property surrounding the Fish House, Stanley asserted legal title and demanded its removal.

Tensions escalated when Stanley attempted to formalize the appellants’ occupation through a lease in 2017 or 2018. Upon refusal, he served a notice in 2019 requesting that the Fish House be vacated and later initiated legal action. The matter proceeded to trial before Justice Pierre Muise of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, where several claims were raised by the appellants, including adverse possession, prescriptive easement, proprietary estoppel, and trespass. Justice Muise rejected all of the appellants' claims, found Stanley to be the lawful owner, and ruled that the Fish House must be removed. He awarded $13,000 in damages, including $8,000 in punitive damages against Crystal.

The appellants' motion for a stay

Crystal Tessier, joined by her brothers Brian and Michael Stanton, appealed the decision and filed a motion for a stay of enforcement of the trial court's order. They sought to delay removal of the Fish House and enforcement of the monetary award until their appeal could be heard. The grounds of appeal included allegations of judicial bias, flawed credibility assessments, and legal errors related to adverse possession, easement rights, and proprietary estoppel. The appellants also claimed that removal of the Fish House would cause irreparable harm due to its alleged historic character and that enforcement of the damages would financially cripple Crystal’s ability to proceed with the appeal.

Crystal submitted an affidavit asserting that weather and logistical conditions had made it impossible to remove the structure by the court-imposed deadline. However, she failed to provide independent evidence, corroboration, or documentation supporting these claims or her alleged financial hardship. Notably, the respondent gave a written undertaking not to disturb the Fish House until the appeal was decided.

The court's analysis and decision

Justice Derrick of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay. Applying the Fulton test, the court concluded there was no arguable issue of law or fact that could justify the appeal. The allegation of judicial bias was found to be unsubstantiated, particularly given that the trial judge had ruled in favor of the appellants in an earlier interlocutory matter. The trial decision was determined to be detailed and balanced, including fair credibility assessments and thorough legal analysis.

The court also found no irreparable harm. The Fish House was not legally recognized as a heritage structure, and its claimed sentimental value did not satisfy the threshold. Furthermore, the respondent’s undertaking to leave the structure undisturbed removed the risk of loss. Crystal’s financial hardship claim lacked evidentiary support, and there was no indication the respondent would be unable to reimburse funds if the appeal succeeded.

Given the absence of any credible ground for appeal and the failure to establish either irreparable harm or a favorable balance of convenience, the motion was dismissed. The order requiring removal of the Fish House and payment of damages remained in full force. Costs of $750 were awarded to the respondent.