FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2016)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 5 times | Saved to 4 briefcases
Beaudoin et al. v. Aubin et al. (1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 604 (H.C.J.).

Facts:

P actually possessed disputed land for over statutory time (1951-1968), however, both P and D were mistaken about true owner.

Issue(s):

Does adverse possession require a specific intention to exclude true owner?

Ratio:

No, where acts are unequivocal, intention is presumed. Where acts are equivocal, specific intention is important.

Analysis:

Adverse possession is (Banning, "The State of the Law of the Limitations of Action):
-"Any possession inconsistent with the title of the lawful owner."
-"All possession without the direct authority of the owner may now be considered as adverse"

Intention is important when acts are equivocal, but when acts are clear, intention is presumed (Littledale v Liverpool).
-Enclosure is the "Strongest possible evidence of adverse possession" (Seddon v Smith)
--P unequivocally exercised control over the disputed land and even enclosed it.

Holding:

P won.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.