• Print
  • Property & IP accounts for 106 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Chappell v United States (2000), 119 F Supp 2d 1013, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16599

In cases of ownerless property, first finder of the property gets rights.

Charrier v Bell (1986), 496 So.2d 601 (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit)

Objects interred with the dead are not abandoned; such objects are intended to remain in the ground.

Clift et al. V Kane et al. (1870) 5 Newfoundland LR 327.

(1) Killing and marking manifest control and therefore vest an absolute property right.
(2) This entitles owners to maintain right short of an act to abandon.

Cochrane v Moore (1890), 25 QBD 57.

Actual physical delivery of chattel is required for a gift, but there are exceptions like deeds, and cases where possession may transfer without deliver (e.g. where person already had effective control but without ownership).

Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010

Establishes the three part test for establishing aboriginal title:
** 1. Land must have been occupied prior to sovereignty
** 2. If present occupation is relied on as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, must be continuity between present and pre-sovereignty occupation
** 3. At sovereignty, that occupation must have been exclusive

Diamond Neon (Manufacturing) v Toronto-Dominion Realty, [1976] 4 WWR 664 (BC CA.)

An article is a fixture unless expressly excluded from a sale; tenants must convert fixtures to chattels for removal on a timely basis.

The court followed the La Salle test to determine whether an object is a fixture or chattel:
** 1. Is the item resting on its own weight? If so, leads to a presumption that the object is chattel;
** 2. What is the degree of annexation? The stronger the attachment, the greater the presumption that the object is a fixture.
** 3. What is the purpose of annexation? If the object has been affixed for the better use of the chattel, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a chattel. If the object has been affixed for the better use of the land, then it strengthens the presumption that it is a fixture.

The court also noted that if an item is decorative, it strengthens the presumption that the object is chattel.

Didow v Alberta Power Ltd, [1988] 5 WWR 606 (Alta CA)

An intrusion that interferes with potential or actual use and enjoyment of the land constitutes trespass. There must also not be overriding policy considerations.

Diversified Products Corp. V Tye-Sil Corp. [1991] F.C.J. No. 124, 35 C.P.R. (3d) 350

(1) Something is anticipated if with no inventive skill you could look at a single prior publication and produce it.
(2) Something is obvious is a technician with skill but no inventiveness could produce it.

Garfinkel v. Kleinberg 1955 CarswellOnt 58, [1955] 2 D.L.R. 844, [1955] O.R. 388

To form a prescriptive easement, use must be done without permission for at least 20 years and must be knowable to an ordinary diligent landowner.

Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co Ltd (1998), 39 OR 555 (Ont CA)

Appropriation of personality is only prohibited in cases (usually endorsement) where the personality is used as a mere means to a commercial end. Uses of personality for which there is a public interest (political or cultural) is protected by free speech.

Greenbanktree Power Corp v Coinamatic Canada Inc (2004), 75 OR (3d) 478

The amount of the property being held is irrelevant -- there remains a prima facie right to partition and sale.

Grosvenor Park Shopping Centre v Waloshin et al (1965) 46 DLR 750 (Sask CA)

Trespass cannot be committed if the premises cannot be said to be in sufficient possession.

The landlord of a premise leased to tenants, together with easements over common areas, and to which the public had an unrestricted invitation to enter, does not have actual possession of the premises and accordingly cannot maintain an action for an injunction based on trespass in respect of picketing carried on by a union against one of the tenants.

Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73

Crown owes a duty to consult with aboriginal people. This extends also to a duty to accommodate, but is not a duty to agree. Third parties have no duty to consult.

Harrison v Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 SCR 200.

: If A is to enter on the land of B without B's permission, It must be done under process of law and with express sanction of legislature.

Harrison v Carswell, [1976] 2 SCR 200

As per R v Peters, though shopping centres offer an unrestricted invitation to enter, they retain the right to withdraw that offer and therefore the right to control. As such, shopping centres have sufficient possession for trespass protection.