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

Style of causeRatio

Stuartburn v Kiansky, 2001 MBQB 94.

A life estate is sufficient to qualify as holding a vested interest in property.

Teis v Ancaster (Town), (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 304, 1997 CarswellOnt 2970 (CA).

(1) Inconsistent use test doesn’t apply when there is a mutual mistake.

(2) Actual Possession determination for the 10 year period as set out in the Limitations Act begins from the moment 'open possession' is implemented on the land (to do so any sooner would be unfair to the true owner).

Teis v Ancaster (Town), (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 304, 1997 CarswellOnt 2970 (CA).

No, but without mutual mistake (or at least mistake by owner) inconsistent use test should be applied.

The Tubantia [1924] P 78, [1924] All ER 615

Possession requires that a person have sufficient control over the object. Control does not necessarily mean "complete dominion." Rather, control is subject to the particular context and type of property:
** Physically demarcating the area under which a wreck is found, accessing the wreck and sending in an exploration team constitutes sufficient possession in the case of a sunken shipwreck

The Tubantia [1924] P 78, [1924] All ER 615.

A possessory right is established by controlling, excluding others, and making use of a thing to a reasonable extent possible as determined by that thing and the environment it's in.

Théberge v Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc, [2002] 2 SCR 336, 2002 SCC 34

An artist has no general right to control legitimate subsequent usage of copyrighted work.

Thomas v. Murphy [1990] NB QB

No significant rule established in this decision.

The intent of the will takes precedence over the necessity of “word magic” and “rule of law”

Touro Synagogue v Goodwill Industries (1957), 96 So 2d 29 (LA Supreme Court)

Cemetery land can be sold only if buried remains are reinterred elsewhere.

Trachuk v Olinek (1995), 36 Alta LR (3d) 225 (QB)

As per the Parker case, finders only acquire rights if:
** A. The good is lost or abandoned
** B. The finder takes the object into care and control.

The court will consider the follwing:
** 1. Was the object lost / abandoned?
** 2. Did the finder take the item into care and control?
** 3. Was the item acquired through dishonesty or trespass?
** 4. Were steps taken to reacquaint object with true owner?
** 5. Was the object on the land, or buried?
** 6. Did the occupier of the land have manifest intent over the land where the object was found? (Sufficient possession?)
** 7. Did the occupier have the right to possess the property where the object was found?

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44, [2014] 2 SCR 256.

(1) To establish Aboriginal title, group must prove that its possession was sufficient, continuous, and exclusive.

(2) Aboriginal title may be violated for a pressing and substantive objective, provided there is consultation proportionate to the claim, and the violation is consistent with the Crown's fiduciary duties (I.e. does not seriously harm future generations).

(3) Aboriginal title entitles group to exclusive use and occupation of land (can go beyond traditional uses), but cannot be inconsistent with future generationsenjoyment.

Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45; (1937) 58 CLR 479 (26 August 1937)

There is no property right in spectacle. People are entitled to do what they want on their own land subject to certain limits (e.g. nuisance) and that includes watching you.

Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

Yes, all that is required is labour.

Wong v Beaumont Property Trust Ltd. [1965] 1 QB 173 (CA)

Yes, where building is necessary for a definite and particular purpose intended by both parties it may be built without consent.

Wood v Gateway, (1990) CA.

In cases of mutual mistake it is legally possible for the party claiming possessory title to establish effective exclusion of the true owners from possession

Evidence of mutual estate may infer intention to exclude true owner