« Consents to Lease Assignments - Case Comment, Loblaws v. The General | Blog Home | Title Fraud Revisited - Reviczky v. Meleknia »
Adverse Possession: Tasker v. Badgerow
In a world of electronic commerce, 'squatter's rights' seems to be an anachronism. Nevertheless, it still applies in many areas in Canada. The law calls it "adverse possession". Where the law permits adverse possession" anyone one who uses land for 10 years or more openly as if they owned it, will be granted ownership it. The court will order 'paper title' to be transferred to the squatter. A key to adverse possession is that the paper title holder must be excluded from the use to which the paper title holder wishes. Yesterday's Court of Appeal decision in Tasker v. Badgerow, 2008 ONCA 202 emphasizes the importance of the use of the paper title holder. Unless that title owner's use of the land is impaired by the squatter, the court will not consider the possession "adverse" and therefore there is no "adverse possession". In this case the squatter put a fence around the property, and argued that this was strong evidence of its actual open possession for over ten years without objection by the original owners, and therefore it should have title by adverse possession. The squatter lost. The court noted that the land in question is a Mill Reserve, and the claimant’s use was not inconsistent with the title owners’ use. The owners of the Mill Reserve only ever intended keep the land for purposes containing a millpond or head pond resulting from damming the River, and so the squatters use was not adverse to the interest of the owner.
March 26, 2008 in Other | Permalink
« Consents to Lease Assignments - Case Comment, Loblaws v. The General | Blog Home | Title Fraud Revisited - Reviczky v. Meleknia »
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.