• Print
  • Property & IP accounts for 106 out of 811 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Beaudoin et al. v. Aubin et al. (1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 604 (H.C.J.).

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

Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran (1988) 86 LGR 472

(1) Yes, where unequivocal intention to exclude is demonstrated, inconsistent use test is irrelevant.
(2) Yes, one can acknowledge ownership because one need not have an intention to own but to possess.

Fairley and Stevens (1966) Ltd v Goldsworthy (1973) 34 DLR (3d) 554.

Bailment gives rise to a standard of care relative to the benefit that accrues to the bailee and his skill. Any negligence is actionable.

Sandom v. Webb, [1951] 1 Ch. 808 (C.A.)

Reservations must be made expressly and mere awareness of facts consistent with reservation does not equate common intention sufficient to grant reservation.

Armory v Delamirie [1722] EWHC J94, (1722) 1 Strange 505.

He has a property right that is not absolute or an ownership right, but will enable him to keep it from others.

Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd 1977 CanLII 1255, 17 OR (2d) 425, 80 DLR (3d) 583

Yes, the tort of appropriation of personality arises whenever a person's exclusive tight to market their own image/personality is violated by using it in whatever way for commercial gain.

Barton v. Raine (1980), 114 D.L.R. (3d) 702 (Ont. C.A.)

A reservation does not require positive evidence of a common intention where the circumstantial facts make a common intention the only reasonable interpretation.

Braglin v Braglin, 2002 ABQB 816

A determination of whether occupation rent is payable is context-specific and discretionary. In this case, no occupation rent required. This is a discretionary remedy: therefore occupation rent may apply in other situations.

Brown v Rotenberg et. Al. [1946] OR 363-376.

To complete delivery, one must give over that which gives effective control/dominion over the thing, e.g. keys.

Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles, [1998] ALR 157

Equity will not automatically impose a constructive trust.
** Equity will only be invoked if there is a need for a just remedy -- might be imposed to prevent the fiduciary from retaining an unconscionable benefit.

Cadillac Fairview Corp. Ltd. v. RWDSU. (1989), 71 OR (2d) 206 (CA).

No, without compelling business rationale, a third party may not exclude labour from their property where entrance is required for the enforcement of their statutory labour rights.

Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Vancouver (City), [2006] 1 SCR 227, 2006 SCC 5

A de facto expropriation requires both an acquisition of a beneficial
interest in a property and removal of all reasonable uses of the property.
** A prohibition on all economic activity does not constitute de facto expropriation.

Caratun v. Caratun, 10 O.R. (3d) 385 [1992] OJ No. 1982.

A license isn't property because it's not transferable and is essentially a right to work, and work is not property.

Caroline v Roper

Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent = Defeasible Interest

Determinable fee simple subject to a right of reverter = Determinable Interest

CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13

(1) In order for a work to have copyright it must be created through the use of skill and judgement.

(2) A copyrighted work may be used fairly so long as: the purpose, character, and amount of the use is fair.
-There was no non-copyrighted alternative
-There is a public interest in the work being copied
-There is a limited or no effect on the market for the work.