The conversion of both properties to Qualified Land Titles occurred in 1995 and thus no possessor title could be acquired after such. The fencing only went part way between the two properties from the rear and over extended unto the neighbour’s property at its end by about 16 inches. However, if the fence line extended. it gobbled up about 2 meters of the neighbor’s property at the front boundary.
As the judge put it “The test for extinguishment of title by adverse possession is an onerous one since the law generally protects the true owner of property and does not interfere readily with registered title”. The Real PropertyLimitations Act, Sections 4. 5 (I) and I 5 establish a I 0 year period ofoccupation as necessary to extinguish a registered owner’s title or conversely the registered owner must exert some ownership rights within such I 0 year period. That period must occur before title is put into Land Titles.
The Ontario Court ofAppeal in Keefer v. Arilloua ( 1976). 13 O.R.(2d) 680 reiterated U1e rules: A person claiming possessory title must establish:
I. Actual possession for the statutory period by themselves or those through whom U1ey claim:
Then come the important adjectives to the first element-the occupation must be ·’open. notorious. peaceful. adverse. exclusive. actual and continuous” and the failure ofan) ofthese elements is fatal to the claim.
If both parties share a misunderstanding at to the true ownership of a piece of property, then possessory title is not established as there was no intent to exclude the titled owner.
The facts ofthe case were not particularly important except to the participants. The fenced area was lost, the unfenced grassy area was not, as there was no structure to prove evidence ofexclusion. The person claiming the squatters’ rights must show that its use ofthe disputed area is inconsistent with the registered owner’s possession ofit for the purpose for which the owner intended to use it. In this particular case. the owner’s use was passive. i.e. not really used but acting as a buffer between the driveway and the property line.
Although not mentioned in this case. it illustrates a slightly different approach to the ”possession” exercised by a squatter called ‘·inconsistent usc”. If the acts of the person claiming title by possession are not inconsistent with the owner’s intended use ofthe disputed parcel of land, then such acts will not be sufficient to show an intention to exclude the owner. This inconsistent usc test was used in an appeal ofa Deputy Registrar of Land fitles case-Marotta v. Creative Investments Limited (2008 Can L II 15772). If the use is not ”inconsistent”, then there cannot be an intent to exclude.
ln larger parcels of land, some owners have used the argument of··futurc development” to defend against serious “use” encroachments including fencing. In other words, if land is held for future development, fencing ora portion ofthe land by a squatter may not be enough to defeat the owner’s legitimate title since an owner ofa large parcel may not care ifa small portion is fenced.
Mutual mistake as to what the real boundary ofa property is may also defeat squatter’s claims. If both parties thought a given boundary was proper and it turned out not to be so. then the squatter had no intention to exclude and therefore loses in any contest.
The issue of prescriptive easements will be left to a future article.
If you cannot easily locate a phone number for your insurance company, contact your insurance broker. They will put you in contact with the appropriate person to report your claim.Read Article
In McIntyre v. Grigg et al (2006) 83 O.R. (3d), 161, the Court of Appeal, for the first time, considered the issue of whether punitive damages were available in the context of a motor vehicle accident claim. I had the privilege of arguing this appeal after my partner David Smye obtained a very favourable verdict from a Hamilton jury. While the majority in the Court of Appeal upheld the jury’s award for punitive damages, the quantum of the award was reduced substantially.Read Article
The investments a trustee can make are governed by sections 27-31 of the Trustee Act. The general rule pertaining to a Trustee’s power of investment is that a trust instrument can define the Trustee’s powers of investment. Trustees are bound by the instructions in the trust deed; the trust’s funds must be invested in strict accordance with the powers granted the trustee, regardless of what may be allowed by the Trustee Act. Should the trust instrument remain silent on investment powers, then, historically speaking, trusts were for the most part confined to judicial and later statutory lists of authorized investments.Read Article
In tort law, there are few areas that are subject to as much judicial and legislative attention as liability of public authorities for the design and maintenance of roadways. This is a field of law that is very much driven by statute. The Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c 25 and the Public Transportation and Highways Act, RSO 1990, c P.50 and regulations made under those Acts contain a number of provisions that potentially shield road authorities from liability for otherwise negligent actions or omissions. Those provisions are not infrequently varied, changed or repealed. Any change can lead to uncertainty and litigation.Read Article
Particularly with the advent of no-fault insurance schemes, more and more people are finding themselves embroiled in litigation with their insurance companies. Whether an insured is bringing an action against their insurer for failing to pay accident benefits, disability benefits, life insurance benefits or property damage claims, a common allegation in any Statement of Claim is that the insurer breached its duty to act in good faith.Read Article
Imagine yourself standing at the bakery counter of your local grocery store. There is a sign that reads bread is 15% off. You ask for a loaf but notice that the baker has cut it in half. Fifteen percent off but for half a loaf. You say that you want a full loaf. The baker says that would cost an extra 30%. Would you buy the loaf? Of course not. The only person benefiting from this deal is the baker. Yet, this is what Premier Wynne has put onto the people of Ontario when it comes to auto insurance. Here is how it works if, for example, a car driver ran a stop sign, broadsided your vehicle and you were injured.Read Article