LLOYD BUSSEY APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ON THE APPLICATION AND: MARY VIVIAN MARTINA MAHER FIRST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: FRANCES RUTH STONE SECOND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: SARAH ELIZABETH BUSSEY THIRD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: MURRINCO READY MIX, a division of Ray Murrin Ltd. FOURTH RESPONDENT, 2016 NLCA 14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL Citation : Bussey v. Maher , 2016 NLCA 14 Date : April 6, 2016 Docket : 200401H0019 BETWEEN: LLOYD BUSSEY APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ON THE APPLICATION AND: MARY VIVIAN MARTINA MAHER FIRST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: FRANCES RUTH STONE SECOND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: SARAH ELIZABETH BUSSEY THIRD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT AND: MURRINCO READY MIX, a division of Ray Murrin Ltd. FOURTH RESPONDENT Coram: Welsh and Rowe JJ.A. Court Appealed From: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division (G) 200201T4728 ( 2006 NLCA 28 )

Application Heard: April 6, 2016 Decision Rendered: April 7, 2016 Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent to the Application: Wayne Bruce Counsel for the First, Second and Third Respondents/Applicants : Christopher Gill Welsh J.A.: [ 1 ] The first, second and third respondents apply for clarification of a unanimous decision of this Court that was filed on May 11, 2006 (( 2006 NLCA 28 , 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 308). At the time and over the years, counsel failed to file an order as required by the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986 . Wells C.J.N.L., who participated in the appeal, has since retired.

Accordingly, the application was heard by the remaining members of the panel who had decided the appeal. [ 2 ] At issue is a boundary line between two properties. No application was made for fresh evidence though the parties referred to surveys each had obtained. In the result, this decision is limited to clarification of the May 2006 decision and the filing of an order.

If a dispute remains as to where the boundary lies on the ground based on the location of buildings referred to in the order, that is a matter of evidence which will require determination by a judge of the Trial Division. [ 3 ] To describe the boundary between the properties, the language used in the decision is “that the boundary between the Bungalo and the ‘store’ is a line along the mid-point between the two buildings” (paragraph 73). These buildings were used as the reference points in determining the boundary. No reference was made to the road adjacent to the properties.

It was clear in the decision that the two buildings were not parallel to each other. [ 4 ] The respondent to the application, Lloyd Bussey, submits that the use of the singular “mid-point” means that one point is taken between the buildings with the boundary line extending from that single point to meet the road at a right-angle. [ 5 ] There is no basis for this

interpretation. The boundary is described as a line “along” the mid-point between the two buildings. A line is not a point, but a connection of a series of points. Hence, the use of the language “along”. To draw such a line requires the finding and connection of the mid-point between the buildings as the line proceeds. It would not be mathematically correct to refer to the plural “mid-points” in drawing a line between the buildings since, at any point, there is just one mid-point.

The line between the buildings, having been ascertained, would extend in a straight line until it intersects with the next boundary line. [ 6 ] Mr. Bussey, having been largely successful on the May 2006 appeal, should have filed the order in accordance with the Rules within a reasonable time. Any dispute as to what was meant would have been clarified long ago. In the result, the respondents having been successful on this application shall have their costs of the application on column 3 of the scale of costs. _______________________________________ B. G. Welsh J.A. I Concur: ____________________________________ M.

H. Rowe J.A .