FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,272 times | Saved to 447 briefcases
R v Peters (1971), 17 DLR (3d) 128


During a boycott where boycotters protested at a shopping centre, the property owner sued the boycotters for trespass.

** Peel Village developments (mall owner, lessor)
** Peters (boycotter)
** Safeway (store owner, lessee)


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.


Appeal decision against Peters -- eventually went to SCC, which said the Appeal court did not err (not that they were right).

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.