• Print
  • Property & IP accounts for 106 out of 711 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Heffron v. Imperial Parking Co (1974), 3 O.R. (2d) 722

(1) A parking spot may be a bailment or license depending on if supervision is provided.
(2) If supervision is provided, an exculpatory clause cannot simply relieve the bailee of the duty to return the goods.

HJ Hayes v Meade, 1987 NBQB

This case is a good example of a court determining the what should happen in uncertain terms of a conveyance.

If condition subsequent, condition is eliminated and gift is rendered absolute.
If condition precedent, condition is best clarified by the court.

In Re Ellenborough Park, [1956] 1 Ch. 131 (CA)

Yes, a common adjacent garden can form an easement as there is (1) a dominant and servient tenement, (2) two owners, and the park is both (3) an accommodation to the enjoyment of the house and (4) capable of being the subject of a grant.

International News Service v Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), 39 S. Ct. 68, 63 L. Ed. 211,1918 U.S.

If it is your stock in trade, you can have a quasi-property interest in something of a public nature. With this right, you bear no rights against the public but do against competitors attempting to reap profit from your labour.

Keefer v Arillotta (1976), 13 OR (2d) 680 (CA)

The adverse possessor must be using the land in a way inconsistent with the intention of the true owner.

The test for whether a person has adversely possession land:
** (1) Actual possession;
** (2) Intention to possess/exclude the owner; and
** (3) Effective dispossession or exclusion of the owner

Keefer v Arillotta (1976), 13 OR (2d) 680 (CA)

The adverse possessor must be using the land in a way inconsistent with the intention of the true owner.

Established the test for whether a person has adversely possession land:
(1) Actual Possession;
(2) Intention to possess/exclude the owner; and
(3) Effective dispossession/exclusion of the owner.

Keron v Cashman (1896), 33 A 1055 (NJ Eq)

Intention and physical control must be concurrent to establish possession.

Keron v Cashman (1896), 33 A 1055 (NJ Eq).

Yes, one must know about a lost object in order to have found it in the legal sense. It is the moment of convergence between control and intention.

Kerr v Baranow, 2011 SCC 10

Monetary damages are not restricted to quantum meruit.

To demonstrate a joint family venture, the complainant must adduce evidence of:
-mutual effort
-economic integration
-actual intent
-priority of the family

If a joint family venture can be proven, then if the complainant can demonstrate a link between their contributions and that a monetary award would be insufficient, they are entitled to a share of the assets proportionate to their contributions.

In a business joint venture, the 4th consideration is eliminated.

Kooner v Kooner, [1979] BCJ no 84.

No, transfer is not sufficient to establish delivery of a gift where actions such as effort to retain control demonstrate an absence of intention to give.

Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. et al.,1 OR (2d) 225; 40 DLR (3d) 15; 13 CPR (2d) 28.

Appropriation of personality is possible but only where it expresses or implies a direct endorsement for commercial gain/use.

La Salle Recreations Ltd v Canadian Camdex Investments Ltd (1969), 4 DLR (3d) 549 (BC CA)

The 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.

Laurin v. Iron Ore Company of Canada (1977) 82 D.L.R. (3d) 634.

Conditions of title that amount to repurchase rights which base repurchase price on something other than market and last for a long time are unreasonable and therefore void.

Letourneau v. Otto Mobile Homes Edmonton (1984) Ltd., 2002 ABQB 609

Bailment can occur upon delivery of chattel and evokes a duty of care of a 'prudent owner'. (Case/fact specific)

Mariner Real Estate Ltd v Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 696 (NS CA)

2-Step test to determine whether an action by the government constitutes expropriation:
** 1. Is it direct expropriation: is the state forcibly acquiring an interest and becoming the owner?
** 2. Is it de facto expropriation:
*** Is this considered “acquisition (is the state taking a degree of indirect interest such that it has in effect acquired an interest equal to ownership)?
*** Is it a stringent regulation of use of the property? Note that mere loss of economic value on its own is not adequate for an action to constitute expropriation.

Also consider whether there is an applicable expropriation statute, which may override the common law regarding compensation.