FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 2,748 times | Saved to 299 briefcases
Trachuk v Olinek (1995), 36 Alta LR (3d) 225 (QB)

Facts:

Olinek found money on a property while working on it. Trachuk claimed a priority interest. T had built a fence around the area where the money was found. O claimed a priority interest against all the world except the true owner.

Ratio:

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?

Analysis:

The Court found that Trachuk had built a fence around the area where the money was found. T also did not have a right to occupy te land. T therefore did not have sufficient possession of or manifest intent over the land where the money was found. Olinek’s interest had priority against all the world except the true owner.

Holding:

Decision: In favour of Olinek.


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.