|
Real Property - Adverse Possession (4). Bazar v. Bruce Trail Conservancy
In Bazar v. Bruce Trail Conservancy (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against "an order for adverse possession in relation to a triangle of land consisting of 1.6 acres. The land abuts a farm property owned by the appellant, Bruce Trail Conservancy.".
Here the court considers 'adverse possession':[2] To obtain an order for adverse possession, a claimant must establish: (1) actual possession of the land; (2) an intention to exclude the true owner from their property; and (3) effective exclusion of the true owner from their property: Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28, at para. 27; McClatchie v. Rideau Lakes (Township), 2015 ONCA 233, 53 R.P.R. (5th) 169, at paras. 9-11. Actual possession is established where the act of possession is open and notorious, adverse, exclusive, peaceful, actual and continuous: Kosicki, at para. 27. All of the requirements must be established throughout a ten-year period occurring entirely before the land was placed under the land titles system: Armstrong v. Moore, 2020 ONCA 49, 15 R.P.R. (6th) 200, at para. 18; Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, s. 4; Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, s. 51.
....
[5] The appellant raises various issues. It argues that there was no evidence to support the finding that the respondents intended to exclude and did effectively exclude the titled owner from possessing the land. We disagree. Intention is usually proved by way of inference. In this case, the inference that the respondents intended to exclude the titled owner from the land flowed logically and inexorably from the evidence before the court. So too did the findings of actual possession, and effective exclusion of the titled owner.
|
