Property Can 2020 - Amazon Web Services · 2020. 10. 22. · Victoria Park Racing and Recreation...

Property 2019-2020

2

TableofContentsCHAPTER 1: THE NATURE OF PROPERTY ........................................................................................ 6

MEANINGS OF PROPERTY ......................................................................................................................................... 6 FORMS OF PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................................. 6 PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE (MERILL) ...................................................................................... 6 ECONOMICS OF PROPERTY ...................................................................................................................................... 7 SOURCES AND JUSTIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY ................................................................................................ 8 NOVEL CLAIMS .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

International News Service v Associated Press (Property in News) .............................................................................. 8 Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Ground Ltd v Taylor [1937] (Property in a Spectacle) ....................................... 9 Moore v Regents of the University of California [1990] (Property in the Human Body) .............................................. 9

CHAPTER 2: PROPERTY LAW IN CONTEXT .................................................................................... 10 ENGLISH COMMON LAW .......................................................................................................................................... 10 CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ................................................................................................... 12 GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS ......................................... 12

Municipal Government Act, s. 640(1) .......................................................................................................................... 13 Hyrdro and Electric Act ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Alberta Expropriation Act s. 2(1) ................................................................................................................................. 13 Property rules vs. liability rules .................................................................................................................................... 13

EXPROPRIATION ......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Process of Expropriation ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Common Law Property Rights ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Principles of Compensation .......................................................................................................................................... 14 AG v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel .................................................................................................................................... 15 Manitoba Fisheries Ltd v R ........................................................................................................................................... 15 British Columbia v Tener .............................................................................................................................................. 16

REGULATORY TAKINGS AND DE FACTO EXPROPRIATION ......................................................................... 16 Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon .................................................................................................................................... 17 Penn Central Transportation Co v New York City ....................................................................................................... 17 Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council ...................................................................................................................... 17 Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan VATV Corp .......................................................................................................... 17 Mariner Real Estate Ltd v Nova Scotia ........................................................................................................................ 18 Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Vancouver .................................................................................................................. 18

EXPROPRIATION PROVISIONS IN FREE TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 3: The Boundaries of Property .................................................................................................... 19 PROPERTY, POVERTY, AND THE RIGHT TO EXCLUDE .................................................................................. 19

Victoria (City) v Adams [2008] .................................................................................................................................... 20 Dwyer v Staunton ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Fontainebleau Hotel v 4525 Inc .................................................................................................................................... 20

LAND AND WATER BOUNDARIES .......................................................................................................................... 21 LAND BOUNDED BY WATER .................................................................................................................................... 23

Public Lands Act: .......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Surveys Act: .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Erik v McDonald ........................................................................................................................................................... 23

ACCRETION .................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Robertson v Wallace: .................................................................................................................................................... 24

SUBSURFACE RIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................ 24 Edwards v Sims (1929) ................................................................................................................................................. 24 Economic Perspective on the Great Onyx Caves ......................................................................................................... 25 Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd v Bocardo SA ................................................................................................................ 25

THE RIGHTS TO MINES AND MINERALS ............................................................................................................. 25 MINERAL TITLE DISPUTES ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Borys v CPR ................................................................................................................................................................. 26

3

Surface Rights Act ........................................................................................................................................................ 26 Public Lands Act ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Mines and Minerals Act s. 10 ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Mines and Minerals Act s. 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 27 Law of Property Act ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

AIRSPACE RIGHTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 Didow v Alberta Power Ltd [1988] .............................................................................................................................. 27

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Coase Theorem & Property vs. Liability Rules – also see Great Onyx Caves ............................................................. 28

FIXTURES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Clash of Security Interests ............................................................................................................................................ 29 La Salle Recreations v Camdex .................................................................................................................................... 29 Re Davis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Tenants Fixtures ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Diamond Neon Ltd v Toronto-Dominion Realty .......................................................................................................... 30 Personal Property Security Act ..................................................................................................................................... 30

TRANSFORMATION OF PROPERTY IN CHATTELS .......................................................................................... 30 Glencore International AG v Metro Trading International Inc ..................................................................................... 31 McKeown v Cavalier Yachts Pty Ltd (1988) ............................................................................................................... 31 Tests for Accession (Thomas v Robinson) ................................................................................................................... 32 Common Law Rule for Accession ................................................................................................................................ 32 Statutory Rule for Accession ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Jones v De Marchant ..................................................................................................................................................... 33

MISTAKEN IMPROVEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Law of Property Act, s 69 ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Gidney v Shank (1995) ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 4: The Concept of Possession ....................................................................................................... 34 Pierson v Post ................................................................................................................................................................ 34 Popov v Hayashi (2002) ................................................................................................................................................ 35 Clift v Kane ................................................................................................................................................................... 35

FINDERS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 General .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Armory v Delamirie ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Keron v Cashman .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Bird v Fort Frances ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Baird v British Columbia .............................................................................................................................................. 37 Parker v British Airways ............................................................................................................................................... 37 Trachuk v Olinek .......................................................................................................................................................... 37

ABANDONMENT ........................................................................................................................................................... 38 Historical Resources Act, s 32(1) ................................................................................................................................. 38 The Jus Tertii Defence .................................................................................................................................................. 38

ADVERSE POSSESSION .............................................................................................................................................. 38 Limitations Act: ............................................................................................................................................................ 39 Land Titles Act, s 74 ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Municipal Government Act s 609 ................................................................................................................................. 40 Public Lands Act s 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Keefer v Arillota ........................................................................................................................................................... 40

ADVERSE POSSESSION OF CHATTELS ................................................................................................................. 41 Barbaree v Bilo (1991) .................................................................................................................................................. 41 O’Keeffe v Snyder (1980) ............................................................................................................................................ 41

GIFTS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 42 INTER VIVOS GIFTS .................................................................................................................................................... 42

Nolan v Nolan & Anor (2003) ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Alberta Evidence Act, s. 11 .......................................................................................................................................... 43

DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA ........................................................................................................................................ 43

4

Re Bayoff Estate ........................................................................................................................................................... 44 Constructive delivery .................................................................................................................................................... 44 Symbolic delivery ......................................................................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 4: DOCTRINE OF ESTATES ............................................................................................... 44 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL NOTES .............................................................................................................. 44

REPUGNANCY 1: Re Walker [1924] irreconcilable will – repugnancy – life estate or fee simple ........................... 47 REPUGNANCY 2: Re Taylor – not fee simple just because of power to encroach on capital ................................... 47 REPUGNANCY 3: Christensen v Martin – intentions based on circumstances, language of whole will ................... 47

RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES OF LIFE TENANTS & REMAINDERPERSONS ........................................... 48 Powers v Powers Estate - Recurring expenses borne by life tenant; capital expenses borne by estate ........................ 48 The Dower Act .............................................................................................................................................................. 49

CHAPTER 5: ABORIGINAL RIGHTS IN LAND .................................................................................. 50 Calder (1973) ................................................................................................................................................................ 50 Guerin (1984) ................................................................................................................................................................ 50

Proving Aboriginal Title ................................................................................................................................................. 50 Aboriginal Rights Short of Title .................................................................................................................................... 51 Extinguishment of Title .................................................................................................................................................. 51 Justifying Infringements of Aboriginal Title ................................................................................................................ 51

Haida Nation Case ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 Legislation Re: Aboriginal Rights ................................................................................................................................. 52 Aboriginal Title and Common law Estates Similarities and Differences ................................................................... 52

CHAPTER 6: EQUITABLE INTERESTS ............................................................................................... 52 THE STATUTE OF USES, 1535 ................................................................................................................................... 53 THE EMERGENCE OF THE TRUST ......................................................................................................................... 54 TYPES OF TRUSTS ....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Express Trusts ............................................................................................................................................................... 55 Resulting Trusts ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Pecore v Pecore ............................................................................................................................................................. 56 Constructive Trusts ....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Semelhago (SCC) .......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Bulun Bulun .................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Murdoch v Murdoch ..................................................................................................................................................... 57 Peter v Beblow .............................................................................................................................................................. 57 Kerr v Baranow ............................................................................................................................................................. 57

CHAPTER 7: QUALIFIED/CONDITIONAL TRANSFERS AND FUTURE INTERESTS .............. 57 Determining the kind of Qualified Interest ................................................................................................................... 59

The Rule in Browne v Moody ...................................................................................................................................... 59 Phipps v. Ackers (Kotsar v. Shattock) .......................................................................................................................... 59

INEFFECTIVE STIPULATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 59 INVALID CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 60 RESULTS OF INVALIDITY ......................................................................................................................................... 60 INVALIDITY: UNCERTAINTY .................................................................................................................................. 61

Sifton v Sifton ............................................................................................................................................................... 61 Kotsar v Shattock .......................................................................................................................................................... 61

INVALIDITY: RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION ....................................................................................................... 61 INVALIDITY: DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC POLICY ................................................................................................... 62

The Leonard Case ......................................................................................................................................................... 62 Doctrine of Cy-Pres ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 McKorkill (SCC) .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Spence v BMO (ONCA) ............................................................................................................................................... 63 Re Esther G. Castanera Scholarship (MBQB) .............................................................................................................. 63 Kay v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service (Australia) ..................................................................................... 63

INVALIDITY: PERPETUITIES AT COMMON LAW ............................................................................................. 63 Rule Against Perpetuities (RAP) .................................................................................................................................. 63

5

INVALIDITY: PERPETUITIES UNDER ALBERTA STATUTE ............................................................................ 65 Scurry-Rainbow Oil (Sask.) Ltd. v Taylor (2001) ........................................................................................................ 65

CHAPTER 8: LEASES, LICENSES, AND BAILMENTS ...................................................................... 66 Street v. Mountford ....................................................................................................................................................... 67 Metro-Matic v. Hulmann .............................................................................................................................................. 67

NATURE OF THE LANDLORD’S AND THE TENANT’S INTERESTS ............................................................... 68 THE CONCEPT OF “TOUCHING AND CONCERNING” ...................................................................................... 68

Merger Restaurants v. DME Foods Ltd. ....................................................................................................................... 68 Anderson v. BC ............................................................................................................................................................. 68

LIMITS ON THE TENANT’S RIGHT TO ALIENATE – RIGHT TO ASSIGN THE LEASEHOLD ................ 69 Sundance v. Richfield ................................................................................................................................................... 69

OBLIGATIONS OF LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (Commercial) ....................................................................... 69 TERMINATION AND REMEDIES ............................................................................................................................. 70

Goldhar v Universal ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 Highway Properties ....................................................................................................................................................... 71 Evergreen v IBI ............................................................................................................................................................. 72

LICENSES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 RESIDENTIAL TENANCY REFORM ........................................................................................................................ 73

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT ............................................................................................................................ 73 BAILMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Letourneau v. Otto Mobiles Edmonton ........................................................................................................................ 75 SUB-BAILMENT ............................................................................................................................................................ 76

Punch v. Savoy’s Jewellers Ltd .................................................................................................................................... 76 The Pioneer Container .................................................................................................................................................. 77

CHAPTER 9: CO-OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................. 77 JOINT TENANCY .......................................................................................................................................................... 77 TENANCY IN COMMON ............................................................................................................................................. 78 SEVERANCE .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

Sorensen v. Sorensen .................................................................................................................................................... 79 RESOLVING CO-OWNERSHIP DISPUTES ............................................................................................................. 80

CHAPTER 10: SERVITUDES ................................................................................................................... 81 CREATION OF EASEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 83 TERMINATION OF EASEMENTS ............................................................................................................................. 84 SCOPE OF EASEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 84

Laurie v. Winch- 1953 SCR .......................................................................................................................................... 84 Malden Farms v. Nicholson- 1956 Ont CA .................................................................................................................. 85 The Rule in Harris v Flower ......................................................................................................................................... 85

OTHER SERVITUDES AND SERVITUDE-TYPE RIGHTS ................................................................................... 85 Profits a prendre: ........................................................................................................................................................... 85 Tener case ..................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Dynex Petroleum v BMO SCC 2002 ............................................................................................................................ 86

COVENANTS RUNNING WITH PROPERTY .......................................................................................................... 87 COVENANTS AT LAW ................................................................................................................................................. 88 COVENANTS IN EQUITY ............................................................................................................................................ 88

Tulk v. Moxhay ............................................................................................................................................................. 88 Galbraith v Madawaska ................................................................................................................................................ 89

6

CHAPTER1:THENATUREOFPROPERTY

MEANINGSOFPROPERTY• Propertyisnotnecessarilyathing,ratherreferstothelegaltitle,theenforceableexclusiveright,ortheintangiblething• Thisisassociatedwithrights,liabilities,andduties,whatWaldroncallsthebasicelementsofownership

o Thisnetworkoflegalrelationshipsdynamic.Existingrelationshipscanbealteredandnewonescreates,withcorrespondingnewlegalconsequences

• Propertyrightsaregoodagainsttheworld(versuscontractualrightsthatarelimitedbyprivityofcontract)• Differingideasaboutpropertyrights:asanaturalphenomenon,asasocialconstructthattendstoreflectthebalanceof

powerinsociety• Propertyasa“bundleofsticks”:propertyasabundleofrights,witheachstickrepresentingaright.Showsthatanyright

associatedwithownershipcanbeunbundledandtransferredtosomebodyelse,whileownershipismaintained• Societaldifferencesbetweenpropertyadphysicalproperty–propertyisaclaimthatwillbeenforcedbythesocietyorthe

state,orbycustom,convention,orlaw

FORMSOFPROPERTY1) Privateproperty:thepersonwhohaspropertyhascertainexclusiverightsthatnooneelsehastothatresource2) Openaccess:anyonecanenjoytheresource,noonehastherighttoexcludeothersfromtheresource(e.g.air)3) Commonproperty:membersofaparticulargroupownandmanagetheresourcetogether.Tonon-membersofthegroup

thislookslikeprivateproperty,butwithinthegroupitmightlooklikeopenaccessa. E.g.villagersowningagrazingpasture

4) Publicproperty:thestateownstheresourceandhastherighttoexclude.Thisformcanbehavelikeprivatepropertyinsomeaspects,butisalsoimbuedwithcertainduties

a. Publicownershipasintrustforthepeopleb. E.g.Premier’soffice–thisispublicproperty,butyouarestillexcludedfromitc. E.g.water

PROPERTYANDTHERIGHTTOEXCLUDE(MERILL)• Therighttoexcludeisseenhereasthemostessentialaspectofproperty• Pointsofconsensusregardingtherighttoexclude:

o Theinstitutionofpropertyisnotconcernedwith“things”(scarceresources)asmuch,butratherwiththerightsofpersonswithrespectthesethings/resources

o Propertyincludestherightsofpersonswithrespecttobothtangibleandintangibleresources(e.g.copyright)o Propertymeanssomethingdifferentthanpossession(andpropertyrightsgenerallytrumppossessoryrights)o Propertycannotexistwithoutsomeinstitutionalstructurethatcanenforceit(usuallythestate,butcanalsobe

somethinglikesocialostracism)• Disagreementsontherighttoexclude:

o Howcentraltherighttoexcludeistotheunderstandingofproperty.3intellectualtraditionsaboutthisincludingsingle-variableessentialism,multi-variableessentialism,andnominalism

o Essentialism:thesearchforthecriticalelementsthatmakeupthecoreofpropertyinallmanifestations(WilliamBlackstone)

Single-variableessentialism Multi-variableessentialism Nominalismo Positsthattherightto

excludeothersistheirreduciblecoreattributabletoproperty

o Positsthattheessenceofpropertyliesnotjustintherighttoexcludeothers,butinalargersetofattributes

o Therighttoexcludeisanecessary,butnotsufficient,conditionofproperty

o E.g.TonyHonore’s

o Viewspropertyasapurelyconventionalconceptwithnofixedmeaning

o Essentiallyanemptyvesselthatcanbefilledbyeachlegalsysteminaccordancewithitsownvaluesandbeliefs

o Heretherightto

7

standardincidentsofpropertyincludetherighttopossess,therighttouse,manage,righttosecurity,etc.

excludeisneithersufficientornecessary,itspresenceisnotessential

ECONOMICSOFPROPERTY• Howdifferenceconceptions/justificationsofpropertyallowustodecidewhatisthebestlegalregimefordealingwitha

particularresource

1) Hobbes:describesthestateofnatureasonewherethereisnopropriety,nodominion,nodistinctionbetweenmineandyours,onlywhatbelongstoeverymanforaslongashecankeepit

a. Believedmanhasarighttoeverything,eventoanother’sbodyb. Importanceofasocialcontracttoescapethestateofwarandguaranteesafety–helpstopropupthestate,only

thencanwehaveindustryc. Whenthereisnopropertytherearenoincentivestoinvest,cultivate,andpreserve

2) Smith:privatepropertyencourageslabour,investment,andusefultradea. Basicideaisthatinalegalsystembasedonprivatepropertyandthefreedomofcontract,thingsendupinthe

handsofthepeoplewhovaluethemthemost–thisisthedefinitionofefficientallocationofresourcesb. Newpropertybecomesthepropertyofthepersonwhomanufacturesit.Onlyifthevaluetothemaker/buyeris

higherthanthevalueoftheinputs,willtheproducerproduceandsellthething3) DeSoto:whatcharacterizesdevouteconomiesisstrong,formalprotectionofpropertyrights.Societieswhereproperty

rightsaren’tformallyrecognizedorprotectedtendtobeunderdevelopeda. Essentiallythatcapitalismhasnotachievedasmuchsuccesselsewhereasithasinthewesternworldb. Saysitisnotabouttheamountofwealthnationshave,ratherthatinothernationsthemajorityofthiswealth

existsonthemarginsc. Becauseofthis,thefailureofmarketeconomiesinemergingnationsarisesinlargemeasurefromtheinabilityto

releasethecapitalpotentiallockedintotheexistingassets4) Harden:TRAGEDYOFTHECOMMONS–howrationalself-interestcanleadthecollectivetoit’sdoom,andhowthatresult

canbeavoideda. Thisdescribesapasturethatisheldincommonbyavillagebutbehavesinternallylikeopenaccess.Everymember

ofthecommunitydecidesthemselveshowmanycattletobringontothepasture,andeveryvillagermakesadecisionintheirownself-interest,leadingtotheultimatedepletionandcollapseofthecommonpasture

b. Gaintheoryperspective:showshowindividualrationalityleadstogroupstupidity(everycattleherderbenefitsfrommorecattle,butthecost(lossofpasture)issharedamongthecommunity.Thisisthesameprocessasaproducerwhobenefitsfrommanufacturingsteel,butinflictsthecost(pollution)onneighbors

c. Hardenseestwoproblems:i. Noactorhasanincentivetomaintainorimprovethecommonresource(benefitsofimprovementare

spreadbutthecostsareindividual,becauseit’snotinanyone’seconomicinteresttogetitdone)ii. Resourcescanbegainedbyanyonesothereisaracetogetthem–e.g.timbercutdownbeforeitis

matured. Howdowesolvethisexternalityproblem?

i. Createacontractbetweenallofthevillagers.Ifthecommunityissmallenoughthismightbepossiblewithcustomorconvention

ii. Establishafirm–everyvillagerownssharesinthatcorporation,soavestedinterestiscreatediii. Nationalization

e. Privatizationallowsdifferentpeopletohaveapieceoftheproperty,sotheycandecidehowtheywanttomanageit–buttherearestillcostsinvolvedwiththis(e.g.fences,monitoring)

f. Anticommonsproblem:toomanyseparateownersofasingleresourceendupblockinganother’suse,resultinginnoonebeingabletoproperlyusetheresource

5) Demsetz:privatepropertyissuperiortoopenaccessorcommonpropertybecauseitalignscostsandbenefitsa. Definesexternality:includesexternalcosts,externalbenefits,monetaryandnon-monetaryexternalities–

basically,somebodyalwayssuffersorenjoystheeffectsofactionb. Althoughprivatepropertymaybesuperiortootherarrangements,wecan’tgetprivatepropertyeverytime,only

whenthegainsfrommovingtoprivatepropertyarehigherthanthecosts

8

c. Propertyrightsareaninstrumentofsocietyandderivetheirsignificantfromthefactthattheyhelpapersonformexpectationsthattheycanreasonablyholdintheirdealingswithothers–aboutcreatinglegitimacyandconsistency

d. E.g.beforethefurtradeanyonecouldhuntfreelyintheforest–huntinggeneratesbenefitsandcosts.Hunterenjoysbenefitsfromtheanimalitself,butdepletionoftheanimalintheforestnegativelyaffectseveryone.AftertradewithEuropeansfurbecameveryvaluableandhuntingincreased,sostockwasdepleted.

i. Externalityofhuntingincreased,movefromasystemofopenaccesstoasystemofpropertyrightswherepeopleallottedanareaoftheforestwheretheycouldhunt,sothecostsandbenefitsarenotaligned

6) RichardPosner:Threecharacteristicstomakepropertylawmoreefficient:a. Promotionofexclusivity:thelawneedstoallocateresourcestoindividualsandgivethemthetoolstoensurethat

theyarerecognizedandenforced,soastominimizetheftandfree-ridingb. Universality:asmanygoodsaspossibleshouldbeavailabletoasmanypotentialholdersaspossiblec. Transferabilityofentitlements:toencourageandassistexchangetothosewhoarethemostwillingtoacquire

them

SOURCESANDJUSTIFICATIONSOFPROPERTY• Naturalandrights-basedapproaches:

o Hegel:propertyisnecessaryforself-actualization§ Basedonatheoryofautonomyandfreewill.Hesaysthattoexerciseourfreewillwerequirematerial

objects§ Toenablepeopletoself-actualize,weneedtoensurethattheyhavetheirownobjects

o Locke:propertyrightscomefromGodbecauseGodcreatedearth.ThistheorysaysthatGodgiveseveryonepropertyintheirownperson(ownstheirownbody),sothelabourproducedbytheirbodyistheirownproperty

§ Ideathatwhenyoumixyourlabourintoapartoftheearththatwasgiventomankind,youhaveremoveditfromthecommonandappropriateditforyourpersonaluse(aslongasyouleaveenoughforeveryoneelse)

§ Apersonwholaboursdeservestoreapwhattheyhavesown(thishasbeeninfluentialinjurisprudence)o Radin:Thisisapersonhoodtheorybasedontheattachmentthatpeopleformwithobjects

§ Characterizedtwovaluesthataresourcemayhave–personhoodvalueorfungiblevalue• Consequentialistapproaches:notbasedinreasoningordivineorder,ratherdealwithconsequences

o Bentham(utilitarianism):suggestedthatnormsandchoicesoughttobeevaluatednotonthebasisoftheirinherentnatureorvalue,butratherontheirconsequences

o Everythingshouldbejudgedonlyonifitincreasesordecreasesthetotalamountofhappinessintheworld(welfareutility)

o Concludedthatpropertydoesnotderivefromanythingbutlaw.Itisbornfromlawanddiesfromlaw,itiswhatthelawsaysitis

NOVELCLAIMS

InternationalNewsServicevAssociatedPress(PropertyinNews)• Facts:Newscompaniesareincompetition,andthecomplainanthasallegedthatthedefendanthasbeenpiratingtheirnews

bybribingemployees,byinducingtheirmemberstoviolateby-lawsandobtainnewsbeforepublication,andbycopyingnewsfromearlyeditionsoftheirnewspaperandsellingit

• Issues:1) Istherepropertyinnews?2) Doespublishednewsbecomepublicpropertywhenitispublished?

• Reasons:o Reasoningwaslargelyeconomic,centeredaroundtheneedtosustainincentivestoengagedinnewsmakingo Thecourtheldthatthereisaquasi-propertyinterestinnewsduetothecommercialrealitiesofitsproduction

§ Thedefendantistakingmaterialthathasbeenacquiredbythecomplainantastheresultoforganizationandtheexpenditureoflabour,skill,andmoney,appropriatingitandsellingitasitsowninordertoreapprofits(Locke’stheoryofmixinglabourwithnaturemakesityours)

o Eachpartyisunderadutytoconductitsownbusinesssoastonotunnecessarilyorunfairlyinjurethatoftheotherparty

o Itisnecessarytodistinguishthesubstanceoftheinformationinnewsfromtheparticularformitiscommunicatedin–thefactsthemselvescontainnopropertyinterest,buttheexpressionoftheidentity

• Dissent(HolmesJ.):

9

o Propertyisacreationoflawanddependsuponexclusionbylawfrominterference(legalrealism).Apersonisnotexcludedfromusinganycombinationofwordsjustbecausesomeonehasuseditbefore

• Dissent(BrandeisJ.):o Thefactthataproductofthemindcosteffort,labour,andexpense,doesn’tautomaticallyconferthestatusof

property.Knowledgeandideasaregovernedbyopenaccess,meaningexclusionisn’tavailable• Ratio:

o ThreethingscontributetothedecisionthatAPhaspropertyinnews:1. Labourtheory–Locke2. Economicincentives–forthepublishersandtheconsumptionbypublic3. Institutionaldesign–whatistheappropriatemechanismfordecidingpropertyrights?

VictoriaParkRacingandRecreationGroundLtdvTaylor[1937](PropertyinaSpectacle)• Facts:thedefendantisaccusedofplacinganelevatedplatformonhisland,fromwhichitispossibletoseetheracetrack

andbroadcasttheraces.Theplaintiffwantstostopthisbroadcastingbecauseitpreventspeoplefromgoingtoraces• Issue:Hasquasi-propertybeencreatedthatlegallypreventsthedefendantfrombroadcastingonhisownland?• Reasons:

o A‘spectacle’can’tbeownedo Economicreasons:justbecauseyousufferafinanciallossbecausesomeonetakesyourbusinessdoesn’tmean

theydidanythingwrong(essenceofcompetition)o Youhavetobeabletoshowthatyouhavesomesortofprotectedinterestthatthedefendantinterferedwith

unlawfullyo Naturalrightsofapropertyownerdon’tincludefreedomfromvieworinspection

• Ratio:Nopropertyrightsinaspectacle,naturalrightsofapropertyownerdon’tincludefreedomfromvieworinspection

MoorevRegentsoftheUniversityofCalifornia[1990](PropertyintheHumanBody)• Facts:Plaintiffallegesthathisphysicianfailedtodisclosepre-existingresearchandeconomicinterestinhiscellsbefore

obtainingconsenttothemedicalprocedureswithwhichtheextractedthecells• Issue:Didtheplaintiffretainanownershipinterestintheexcisedcellsandmattersuchthathemayprosecutethe

defendantsforconversion?• MajorityReasons:

o Toestablishaconversiontheplaintiffmustestablishanactualinterferencewithhisownershiporrighttopossession

o BecauseMooredidnotexpecttoretainpossessionofhiscellsfollowingtheirremovalanddidnotretainanownershipinterestinthem,theclaimofconversionfails

o Statutorylawdrasticallylimitsapatient’scontroloverexercisedcellsandeliminatesrightsordinarilyattachedtoproperty

o TheCourtisconcernedwiththerightsofthepatient.However,conversionisastrictliabilitytortwhichsubjectsinnocentthirdpartiestoliabilityforactswhichmaynotbeundertheirdirectionandcontrol.Thecourtfoundthatthebreachoffiduciarydutytheoryandthelackofinformedconsenttheorywerebettersuitedtoprotecttherightsofpatients.Thus,theCourtdeclinedtoextendconversionliabilityinthistypeofsuit.

• Dissent(MoskJ.):concurringo Thelimitationpresentdiminishesthebundleofrightsthatwouldotherwiseattachtoproperty,butwhat

remainsisstillaprotectablepropertyinterest(propertycanbemodifiedandstillbeproperty)o ThePlaintiff’sbodyisuniqueandbaseduponethicalandequitableconcernsthePlaintiffshouldhaveaproprietary

interestinthecellsandtissueofhisbody• Conclusion:

o Sincethesecellsarethesameineverypersonandbecauseofthereachofthelegislation,thepatentedlineisbothfactuallyandlegallydistinctfromthecellstakenfromMoore’sbody

o Policyimplicationsalsoplayarole–thetortofconversioncouldcreateanobstacletocurrentandfuturemedicalresearch,andthisisbettersuitedtolegislation

• Ratio:o Noactionbasedonatheoryofconversionmaybeprosecutedwherethesubjectmatteroftheallegationare

excisedcellstakenfromPlaintiffinthecourseofamedicaltreatment;however,anactionmaybebasedontheoriesofbreachoffiduciarydutyorlackofinformedconsent

o Thelawofconversionrequiresyoutohaveeitherapossessoryoraproprietaryinterest–neitherhere

10

o Courtchosenottoexpandthedoctrineofconversionforpolicyreasons–shouldbelegislatedContrastingINSvAPwithMoore

• Bothareeconomicconcerns• InINS,Pitneyisconcernedwithconsequencesofnotrecognizingenoughproperty.

o InMoore,PanelliisconcernedwithconsequencesofrecognizingtooMUCHproperty.• Pitneyisconcernedaboutleavinginformationinthecommons,thetragedyofthecommons.

o Panelliisconcernedwithexcludingtoomuchinformationfromthecommons,thetragedyoftheanti-commonsRestrictionsontheRecognitionofNewPropertyInterests• Principleofnumerousclausus(Merrill):conceptofpropertylawwhichlimitsthenumberoftypesofrightsthatthecourts

willacknowledgeashavingthecharacterofpropertyo Thismeans‘thenumberisclosed’anddecreasesflexibility,becausepropertyrightsarespecialrightsduetotheir

effectagainstthirdpartiesmeaningtheholderofapropertyrightisinamorepowerfulpositionthantheholderofapersonalright

o Thisisadeviceforminimizingtheeffectsofdurablepropertyinterestonthosedealingwithassetsinthefuture,andparticularlytheeffectsofexcessivefragmentationofinterestsor‘anticommons’

o Downsideislessflexibility• Policyjustificationsofnumerousclausus:

1) Measurement-costexternalities:a. Partieswhocreatenewpropertyrightswillnottakeintoaccountthefullmagnitudeofthemeasurementcosts

theyimposeonstrangerstothetitleb. Byallowingevenonepersontocreateanidiosyncraticpropertyright,theinformationprocessingcostsofall

personswhohaveexistingorpotentialinterestsinthistypeofpropertygoup2) Frustrationcosts:

a. Mandatoryrulessometimespreventthepartiesfromachievingalegitimategoalcost-effectivelyb. Standardizationactsasaformofprice-discrimination-partiesthatarewillingtopaymoreforanobjectivecan

achieveitbyincurringhigherplanningandimplementationcosts3) Optimalstandardization:

a. Thisissomewhereinbetweenmaximumstandardizationandthefreedomofcustomizationb. Bycreatingastrongpresumptionagainstjudicialrecognitionofnewformsofpropertyrights,thenumerous

claususimposesabrakeoneffortsbypartiestoproliferatenewformsofpropertyrights.Butpermittinglegislaturestocreatenewformsallowsforsomediversification

4) Informationcosts:a. Technologylowersinformationcostsanddiminishestheneedforstandardization

Anti-commonsandassemblyproblems(reallyitsabouttransactioncosts)

• Ifuseofgenesandpatentedprocessesrequiresconsent,canbemajorobstacletoresearch• Reallyabouttransactioncosts• Thecommonsoranti-commonsarenottheprobleminotherwords.Theproblemiscostoftradingpropertyrights.Thecost

ofaggregatingordisaggregatingpropertyrights

CHAPTER2:PROPERTYLAWINCONTEXT

ENGLISHCOMMONLAW• FeudalismtranspiredoutofthechaosofthedeclineoftheRomanEmpire.Peoplesoughtsecurity,foundinthepracticeof

commendation,bywhichpeopleplacedthemselvesundertheprotectionofamorepowerfulneighbourwheretheweakerbecamethe"vassal"andthestrongerbecamethe"lord"

• Kingappointedbaronsoverlargefiefdomsofland-theKingenfeoffedtothemastenantsincapite(inchief),andtheypledgedtheirmilitarysupportinexchangeforsecurityoftenureandotherprivileges

o AslongastheydidwhattheKingwanted,theyareguaranteedpossessionofthelandsgiventothem-landscalledtenements

o TenantsincapitepledgeacertainnumberofknightsfortheKing'sarmy

11

• Commendationcreatedasituationwherethevassalnolongerownsthelandbut"holds"itfromthelord-thevassalhasbecomeatenant

• Vassalswereabletosubgranttheirownvassalportionsofthelandinaprocessknownas"subinfeudination"o Tenantsincapitefulfilledtheirfeudalobligationsbysubinfeudation

• Tenure:comesfromtheword“tohold”,meansthatyouarealandowner.ApersonwhoholdslandthatbelongstotheKing

isatenanto Feudalrelationship:theessenceoftenureisapersonalbondbetweenafeudalsuperiorandavassal,therightto

holdthelandofthekind(directly,orthroughafeudaloverlord)o Theonlymainsimilarityispossessoryrights(canpossesstheland,butnotsell)

• Tenurialservices(freetenure):tenuresweredefinedbytheperiodicobligationsofthetenant.Standardtenureswere:o Knightservice:obligationtoprovideknightso Socage:obligationtoprovidesomesortofproduceorothersourceofrevenue-fixednumberthatcouldn'tbe

changedo Frankalmoign:spiritualtenure,toprayfortheKingo Serjeanty:ceremonialtenures(grandandpetite)

• Unfreetenure:wastheburdenofvilleins(peasantserfs)tomakethelifeofthemanorpossibleo Theyhavenorightsinthecourtsoftheking;theironlyrightsaredeterminedbycustom.Workisnotfixedbut

ratherarbitrary• Incidentsoftenure:infrequentandoccasionalliabilitiesthatwouldbecomemoreimportantthanobligations

o Homageandfealty:processbywhichapersonbecomesavassalofasuperiorperson,symbolic,serviceofreverence.Owethesuperiorcompleteloyalty

o Escheat:therightofthefeudallordtohavethelandreverttohimifatenantdiedwithoutanheir§ Thesecurityoftenurewasinitiallyforthelifeofthetenureonly,andwhenthetenurepassedawayit

revertedbacktothemonarch(toprotecttheking)§ Thissystemdidn'tworkforanyonebecausewhowouldinvestinlandifafterthey'regoneitgoesbackto

theking§ BythetimeHenryIcametothethrone,itbecamethecustomthattherightfulheirwasallowedtoascend

tothetenementconditionalonpaymentofoneyear'srentoftheland(thisiscalledrelief)• Forfeiture:ifthetenantwasguiltyoftreason,thelandwasforfeitedandrevertedbacktothefeudalsuperior• Aids:specialleviesthatwerepayablewhenthefeudalsuperiorrequiredsomething• Relief:thetenant'srighttohavehisheirascendtothetenementuponpaymentofoneyear'srent• Wardshipandmarriage:wardshipwastherightofthelordtomanagethelandofthetenantwholeftanheirwhohadn't

reachedtheageofmajorityo Marriage:thelordhastheabsoluterighttochooseaspouseforthetenant'sheir,toguaranteealliances

• DeclineofEnglishfeudalism:thiswasduetosocialandeconomicdevelopments,andtheweightofthesystemo TenurialservicesbecameunsatisfactoryfortheKingashewantedaprofessionalarmy,soinsteadwantedmoneyo Thisledtotenantspayingrevenuetothekindinsteadofprovidingincidentsoftenure(beginstolookliketaxes)o Problemwasinflation,whichcreatedshortagesinrevenue

StatuteQuiaEmptores:

• Thisactprovidedthatnoonecouldtakeonnewtenantsoftheirownmeaningtheprocessofsubinfeudinationwasnowprohibited

o Beforethis,tenantswouldsubinfeudatetheirlandstoavoidtaxesbytakingnewtenantsandonlychargingthemsomethingtrivial,whichendsupcostingthekingalotofmoney(thisallowedthemtoavoidtheincidentsoftenure)

• Thisactallowsfreesubstitution,meaningthatlandbeginstobehavelikeanothercommodityonthemarketthatcanbeboughtandsold,whichhasatremendoussocialimpact

• Thedeclineinfeudalismmeansachangeinsocietyfromstatustocontract–meaningthatyouarelesslimitedbybirthcircumstances

• AsaconsequencealllandinEnglandcametobehelddirectlyoftheCrown• Certainpossessoryrightsbegantoexist,andthesellingofthebundleofpropertyrightstosomeoneelsewascreated

o ThecommonlawsystemdoesnotrecognizeownershipoflandbecauseitisallthepropertyoftheCrownContinuationofFeudalIdeas

• ThedoctrineoftenureremainsthefoundationofAlbertapropertylaw• Allland(exceptlandheldbyAboriginalTitle)istechnicallyheldbytheCrown,freefromanyservicesorincidents,except

escheat

12

o TheUnclaimedInvestedPropertyActsaysthatwhenapersondiesinAlbertawithoutanheir,will,orrelatives,thelandofthatpersonvestsintheCrownandtherightofAlberta(escheat)

• Thedurationoftenureisdefinedbythedoctrineofestateso Thelongesttenureyoucanenjoyisanestateinfeelsimpleo Feesimpleisanabstractionofowningtheland(becausetheCrownownsit)

ReceptionofEnglishLaw

• AlbertawasregardedassettledandthesettlersweredeemedtohavecarriedEnglishlawwiththemo InotherpartsofCanadaEnglishlawwasimportedthroughsettlement,conquest,orcession

• EnglishlawautomaticallypartofthelawinAlberta–statutesaysthatthedateofreceptionwas1870o Caveats:thelawshallbeenforcedsofarasitisapplicable,andsofarastheyhavenotbeenmodifiedbyavalid

pieceoflegislation• Thispatternofadherenceexistsbecause:

1) Thereceptionofagivenruleusedbecausetheabsenceofadoptionwouldcreateuncertainty–moreconvenienttousethisthantoreinvent

2) Credibility:Englishlandlawseenasrepresentingtheapotheosisofjustice,andthiscommonlawwasseenastheencodingprinciplesofjusticeandarepositoryofcenturiesofcollectedwisdom

a. Althoughthiswasn’tpursuedatallcosts,shownbythefactthatofteninconqueredcoloniesthecolony’slawswereused

CLASSIFICATIONOFPROPERTYINTERESTS

• Realproperty:permanent,non-moveablepropertyo Example:landandbuildings

• Incorporealproperty:can’tbeseenorhandled,onlyexistsincontemplationo Example:theannualrentpayableforahouse

• Corporealproperty:canbeseenandhandledo Example:ahouse

• Personalproperty:Thebelongingsofanindividual,excludinganyrealestatepropertyorotherbuildings o Example:tangibleandintangibleassetsofanindividual.

• ChattelsPersonal:movablethingswhichmaybeannexedtoorattendantonthepersonoftheowner,andcarriedaboutwithhimfromonepartoftheworldtoanother

• ChattelsReal:anothernameforalease,lookslikearightinlandandisessentiallythato Writofejectment:allowedatenanttorecoverpossessionoflandagainstatrespasser

• ChosesinPossession:tangiblegoodsyoucanhold• ChosesinAction:proprietaryintereststhatcanonlybeenforcedbythecourt

o Example:therighttoenforceadebt• Leases:aconveyanceoflandsortenementstoapersonforlife,foratermofyears,atwill,inconsiderationofareturnof

rentorsomeotherrecompense

GOVERNMENTINTERVENTIONANDPROTECTIONOFPROPERTYRIGHTSGovernmentIntervention

• Firstthingtoask:underwhatauthoritydidthegovernmentact,orpurportedlyact,whenitinterferedwithpropertyrights?o Theruleisthatthereisnolongeraroyalprerogativeoverproperty,thereforeanyinterventionbythegovernment

mustbeauthorizedbyastatuteo Ifagovernmentactsoutsideitsauthorityitisultravires

13

• Divisionoflegislativepowersforproperty:o Federalpower:POGG,tradeandcommerce(s.92(2)),banking,interest,patents,trademarksandcopyrights(s.

91(22-23)),landreservedforIndianso Provincialpower:propertyandcivilrights(s.92(13)),provincialpubliclandsandtimber,localworksand

undertakings,mattersofamerelyprivate/localnature,municipalinstitutionsintheprovince

Examplesofprovinciallysanctionedinterventions:

MunicipalGovernmentAct,s.640(1)• Alandusebylawmayprohibitorregulateandcontroltheuseanddevelopmentoflandandbuildingsina

municipality

HyrdroandElectricAct• AuthoritytoexpropriateunderthisAct

AlbertaExpropriationActs.2(1)• AppliestoanyexpropriationauthorizedbythelawofAlberta,showshowmuchtocompensateifthegovernment

expropriates

Propertyrulesvs.liabilityruleso Propertyrulesconsistofthosethatentitletheclaimanttoaninjunctiono Liabilityrulesentitletheclaimanttodamageso Thedistinctionbetweenthemisimportantbecauseinjunctionsanddamageshavedifferenteffectsonfuture

behaviourandonnegotiatedsettlementstoclaimsLimitstoLegislativePoweroverPrivateProperty

• ThereisnoprovisionintheConstitutiondefendingpropertyexceptforprotectionagainststateinterferencewithAboriginalrights

o Section8“righttobesecureagainstunreasonablesearchandseizure”istheclosest• NoexpressprotectionagainststateconfiscationintheCharter.Thiswasnotanoversightbutaresultofpoliticalinterests

o SomeCharterrightshavebeeneffectiveinprotectingarangeofcommercialinterests,liketheguaranteeoffreedomofexpressionclausetoundoregulationsaffectingcommercialadvertising

• CanadianBillofRights(1960):stillinforce,butmanyoftherightsaremorerobustlyprotectedbytheChartero PrimesignificancetodayrelatestopropertyrightsbecausetheBillrecognizesarighttotheenjoymentofproperty,

andtherightnottobedeprivedthereofexceptbydueprocessoflaw(notthatitwon’teverbetakenaway)o TheBillappliesonlyfederallybutseveralprovinceshavecomparablelegislationo AlbertaBillofRights:Section1(a)givestherightoftheindividualtoliberty,securityofthepersonandenjoyment

ofproperty,andtherightnottobedeprivedthereofexceptbydueprocessoflawo AlbertaPersonalPropertyBillofRights

§ Principlelimit:maybeoverriddenbyexpresslegislativeaction§ Section2:onlyprotectspersonalproperty,meaningthatsomethinglikealeaseisnotprotectedbythis§ Section4:everystatutewillbeinterpretedagainstthestateandinfavourofthepropertyowner,unless

anActexpresslydeclaresthattheenactmentoperatednotwithstandingtheBillofRights§ Thisisnotarealobstaclewhenthegovernmentwantstotakepersonalpropertyaway

EXPROPRIATION

• Expropriationistheoutrighttakingofprivatelandforpublicpurposes.Thismaytriggerarighttocompensationin

accordancewiththeprovincialExpropriationActo Ifthegovernmentregulatesprivatepropertybutdoesn’tacquirethelanditself,thereisrarelyarightto

compensationeveniftherestrictionsareverysevereorresultinadrasticlossofvalue• Variousprovincialenactmentsauthorizeexpropriation,includingtheMunicipalGovernmentActandtheHydroand

ElectricEnergyAct

14

• Notallmeasuresgiverisetocompensation–compensationgenerallyinvolvesacasespecific,oradhocinquirythattakesarangeoffactorsintoaccount.Itisgenerallynotenoughtoshowthattheimpugnedmeasureisnotofuniversalapplication

• Caseforexpropriation:1) TheCrownhastitle2) The“needsofmany”3) Expedienceandtheassembly/holdoutproblem

• Casesforcompensationforinterferencewithproperty:1) Equitycaseforcompensation:ifthereisapublicinterestintheproject,thenthecostshouldbebornebytheproject

a. Theburdenshouldn’tbeplacedononeindividualforthebenefitofall2) Economicefficiency:

a. Incentivesoflandownertoinvest:ifnocompensation,thennoincentivetoinvestintheproperty(Hobbesideathatnoonewouldcultivatethelandifitcouldbeeasilytakenaway)

b. Incentivesofpublicagency:ensuresthatgoodsmovefromoneownertoanotherwhenthebuyersevaluationishigherthanthesellers.

i. Thecostofthetakingisarealsocialcost,soforcingcompensationtobepaidensuresthattheyonlytakeprojectsthatareworthwhile

3) Practicality:somegrievancesaremorecompensablethanothers

ProcessofExpropriation• Whenanexpropriatingauthoritydecidestoacquireprivateland,itmustfirstnotifyeverypersonwhohasaninterestinthe

landitintendstotakeo TheExpropriationActspecifiestheinformationthatmustbeincludedinthenoticeofintentiono Thenoticeofintentionmustbegiveneitherinpersonorbyregisteredmail,andpublishedatleasttwiceinalocal

newspaper• Oncethenoticeofintentionhasbeengiven,interestedpersonsmayfilea“noticeofobjection”totheproposed

expropriation.Theymayquestionwhetherthetakingisfair,soundandreasonablynecessarytoachievetheobjectivesoftheexpropriatingauthority

o E.g.anownermightarguethatarightofwaythroughhisorherlandshouldbenarrowerthantheexpropriatingauthoritydemanded

o Theymaynotdisputetherightoftheexpropriatingauthoritytoresorttoexpropriation,orobjecttotheprojectitself:adecisiontoconstructanewhighway,school,orhospitalispoliticalinnature,andisnotforacourttodecide

CommonLawPropertyRights• Therighttocompensationdoesnotexistatcommonlaw.Itmustbefoundinstatute• Thisisbecausethegovernment’spowertointerferewithyourpropertyrightsisderivedfromstatutoryauthority-this

comesfromSisterofCharityofRockinghamvRo “Compensationclaimsarestatutoryanddependonstatutoryprovisions.Noowneroflandsexpropriatedby

statuteforpublicpurposesisentitledtocompensation,eitherforthevalueofthelandtaken,orfordamageonthegroundthathislandisinjuriouslyaffected,unlesshecanestablishastatutoryright.”

PrinciplesofCompensation• Wherelandisexpropriated,thecompensationtotheownerisbasedonthemarketvalueofthelandand,dependingonthe

circumstances,damagesfordisturbanceandforinjuriousaffection(devaluationoftheowner’sremainingland,whereonlypartofhisorherlandistaken),andthevalueofanyspecialeconomicadvantagethattheownerenjoyedbecauseofoccupyingtheland

• Thepurposeofcompensationistomaketheowner,asmuchaspossible,“whole”• TheExpropriationActsetsoutadditionalguidelinesforassessingcompensationforspecialpurposestructuresandfor

compensatingbusinessowners,tenants,andholdersofsecurityinterestso Alsosetsoutvariousfactorsthatmustbedisregardedwhendeterminingcompensation,suchasthefactthatthe

expropriationwascompulsory,howthelandwillbeusedbytheexpropriatingauthority,andanychangesinthevalueofthelandthatareconnectedwiththeexpropriationproceedings.

ExpropriationActofAlberta:

• S.2–ifexpropriationoflandoccurs,compensationmustbepaid• 2(1)ThisactappliestoanyexpropriationauthorizedbythelawofAlberta• 42(1)Whenlandisexpropriated,theexpropriatingauthorityshallpaytheownerthecompensationasisdeterminedin

accordancewiththisact

15

• (Landtakenisguaranteedcompensationthatisdeterminedbytheact)SurfaceRightsActofAlberta:

• S.15(1)ifoperatorcan’tacquiretherights,thesurfacerightsboardcangrantarightofentrybutboardwilldeterminethecompensationpayabletotheownerunders.23(Takingofaneasement,righttoexclude)

HydroandElectricEnergyAct:

• S.37-iftransmissionlineextends/intrudesoveryourland,nocompensationisallowed.• Similarlyamountstoaneasement,butnotcompensablehere.ViolaterightsinUSAbutwedon’thave.

MinesandMineralsAct,s15.1(porespace)

• PorespaceisvestedintheCrown• Confiscatesprivatepropertyandspecificallystatesthatthereisnocompensationtobehad• Also,notevenataking

Takeaways:

• Gov’ttakesland,itiscompensable• Governmenttakesyourporespace,notataking,notcompensable• Oilcompanygrantedrightofwayoveryourland,itiscompensableeasement• Electriccompanyintrudesintoyourairspace,notacompensabletaking

AGvDeKeyser’sRoyalHotel• Facts:Theclaimants,DeKeyser’sRoyalHotel,weretheownersofaLondonHotelthathadbeenusedbysomemembersof

thearmedforcesinWorldWarOne,andtheysoughtreasonablecompensationforthisoccupationundertheDefenceAct1842.Thedefendants,theGovernment,attemptedtorejectthisclaim,assertingthattheirdutytodefendtherealm,asperprerogativepowersandtheDefenceoftheRealmAct1914,meanttheyhadnoobligationtocompensatetheclaimants.

• Issues:Doesthegovernment’sprerogativepowersauthorizethemtoevadestatutoryresponsibility?• Reasons:TheroyalprerogativedoesnotentitletheCrowntotakepossessionofasubject'slandorbuildingsfor

administrativepurposesconnectedwiththedefenceoftherealmwithoutpayingcompensation.Itistheauthorityforthestatementthattheroyalprerogativeisplacedinabeyance(isnotused)whenstatutelawcanprovidealegalbasisforanaction

• Rule:o Astatutecanimplicitlyconferarighttocompensationo Ifastatuteauthorizesexpropriation,thereisanassumedrighttocompensationunlessthestatureexplicitly

statesthereisnocompensation

ManitobaFisheriesLtdvR• Facts:ManitobaFisherieshasafishingcontracttoprocessesfishandexportthemtotheUS.Thegov'twantstonationalize

theexportoffreshwaterfishtotheUSandsopassastatutesayingthataCrowncorporationisestablished,andallfreshwaterfishexportwillbedonebytheCrowncorporation(theyhaveanexclusiveright).TheeffectistoputManitobaFisheriesoutofbusinessovernight.Thestatutesaysthatparticipatingprovincesmaypassregulationstocompensatethebusinessesnegativelyaffected

• Issue:didthefederallegislationtakeawaytheplaintiff’sproperty?• Reasons:theSCCfindsthatbusinessgoodwillthatManitobaFisheriesbuiltisanintangiblepropertycapableofbeingsold

andprotected.ThegoodwillisnowvestedintheCrowncorporationbecausetheyarethenowtheonlyoneswhocandobusiness

o Courtsaysthatgiventhatthereisnoprovisiontocompensate,andnoprovisionnottocompensate,theyweregoingtoinvoketheruleinKeyersRoyalHotel-animpliedrighttocompensation

• Ratio:o RighttocompensationbasedonKeyser’s–goodwillisaproprietaryinterest–thisiscompensationforaregulatory

takingo Kaplinskysaysthisisprobablywronglydecided

16

BritishColumbiavTener• Facts:TeneracquiredcertainmineralrightsinBritishColumbia.Hewantedtoworkthematerials,butthegovernment

wantedtohaveaprovincialparkwherethosemineralswerelocated.BCministrysaidTenorwillneverbeabletoworkwiththoseminerals,sohesued

• Reasons:o SCCisconfrontedwithasituationdifferentfromManitobaFisheries–itwasabletosayinthatcasethatthe

Crowncorporationtookthebusinessgoodwillthatbelongedtothecompany,buthereitdoesn’tappearasifanythingwastaken,justhavetheobstructionofaccess

o TheprincipleinKeyser’sisinvoked,soTenorgetscompensationformineralrights• ThiscaseandManitobaFisheriesarerareexamplesoftheSCCfindingarighttocompensationimpliedinstatutebasedon

theconstructioninKeyser’s,havingfoundthatthegovernmenttookpropertyfromtheplaintiff

REGULATORYTAKINGSANDDEFACTOEXPROPRIATION

• Focushereonequityandefficiency–equityasmoreofagreyzone,efficiencyasgenerallyalwaysfavoured• DifferencebetweenUSandCanada:FifthAmendment,statesthatprivatepropertycannotbetakenforpublicusewithout

justcompensation• IntheUnitedStatesthelawrecognizesacompensable“regulatorytaking”wheretheregulationsstripthelandofall

economicvalue,orforcetheownertosufferaphysicalintrusionintotheland,oraresaidsimplytogo“toofar”• ThisisnotthelawinCanada.Instead,theprinciplethattherighttocompensationmustbebasedinstatutemeansthatan

ownerisnotentitledtocompensationunlesstherestrictionsoftheowner’srightsaresodrasticthattheyshouldproperlyberegardedasaneffectivetakingofthelandwithinthemeaningoftheExpropriationAct.Thisisknownas“defacto”or“constructive”takingofland

• ThetraditionalviewinCanadahasbeenthatthereisnoexpropriationunlessthegovernmentacquiresthetitletothelandfromitsowner.TheSupremeCourtreiteratedthisviewinits2006decisioninCanadianPacificRailwayCo.vVancouver(City).Inthatcaseitheldthatadefactotakingrequiresfirst:

o “Anacquisitionofabeneficialinterestinthepropertyorflowingfromit”,andsecond,“removalofallreasonableusesoftheproperty”

o Thedecisionleavesthelawuncertainastowhetherownersmustbecompensatedforadefactotaking.Thedoormaybeopen,intheory,forsuccessfulclaimsinthefuture,butthethresholdisveryhighandwillnotbemetintheordinarycase

Regulatorytakingsdoctrine:

• Thebasicapproachinregulatorytakingsdoctrineisknownasthe“PennCentralInquiry”(amixtureoffactorsfrombothMahonandPennCentral).

• Thisapproachisanadhoc,factualinquirythataskswhetherthepropertyparcelasawholeisimpactednegativelybytheregulationinanextraordinaryway,suchthatittakestheregulationoutofthepolicepowerdomainandwithinthepurviewoftheprotectionsandlimitationsoftheFifthAmendment

• Threegeneralfactorsusedbythecourtsintheirbalancingapproach(PennCentralInquiry):1) Economiceffectofregulationonproperty

a. Determiningtheeconomicvaluelostunderaregulationmustcomprisethepropertyasawhole2) Characterofgovernmentregulation

a. Isthisarun-of-the-millpolicepowerregulationorisitadramaticandunexpectedactofthegovernmentthataffectspropertyinsuchasubstantialwaythatitconstitutesatakingofthatproperty?

3) Extenttowhichregulationinterfereswithdistinct,investment-backedexpectationsa. Thisassesseswhethertheexpecteduseofthepropertythathasbeenrestrictedbytheregulationhaslong

beenastickinthebundlethatthelawhassecuredtothepropertyownerb. Wasitreasonableforthelandownertoexpecttocontinueusingthepropertyinthewaythatitisnow

prohibitedundertheregulation,anddidthelandownerobjectivelyevidencethisreasonableexpectationbyinvestinginthepropertyaccordingly?

AdHocRegulatoryTakings:Regulationthathasgonesofarithasbecomeataking(onlyintheUS)

17

PennsylvaniaCoalCovMahon• Facts:thecitypassedanordinancerestrictingminingunderpeople’shomes• Reasons:

o Ifyouownthesurface,atcommonlawyouhaverightofsupports.Thismeansthatanyonewhohasaninterestbelowthegroundcan’ttakeactionifitwouldharmyou,orelseyouwouldgetdamages

o Inthiscaseallofthelandisinitiallyownedbythecoalcompany,whichsellspeoplethesurfaceandairspacerightsandreservesthesubsurfaceandmineralrightsforitself.Theyexplicitlystatedthatthebuyersdonothavetherightofsupports

o TheKohlerActstatedthatacoalcompanyhastoreserveenoughcoalunderneathtopreventsubsidence,andwhentheydon’ttheyarerequiredtopaydamages

§ Theeffectofthisacttookthesupportrightsthatwerereservedbythecompany,andgavethemtothesurfaceowners

§ Arguedthatthisregulationhastheeffectofataking–ifthisisaccuratethenitissubjecttotheFifthAmendment‘

• Holding:Thisisseenasataking.TheKohlerActwasnotalegitimateexerciseofpolicepower,ratherwasanunconstitutionaltakingofdefendant’spropertyrightsbecausenocompensationwasgiven

• Ratio:Thegeneralruleisthatwhilepropertymayberegulatedtoacertainextent,ifregulationgoestoofaritwillberecognizedasataking(USONLY)

PennCentralTransportationCovNewYorkCity• Facts:Ownerswantedtobuildontheirlandbutthecitydesignateditasaconservationarea.Theyargueditwasatakingof

theirproperty• Reasons:

o Weneedtolookateachcaseonanadhocbasistoseeifatakinghasoccurred.Wedothisbylookingat:(teststatedabove)

1) Theextentoftheharm2) Whetherregulationinterfereswithinvestment-backedplans3) Natureofstateaction

PerSeTakings:whereastatedoessomethingsothattheyautomaticallyhavetocompensate

LucasvSouthCarolinaCoastalCouncil• Facts:ThePetitionerpurchasedtwobeachfrontlotsfor$975,000in1986.Heintendedtobuildsingle-familyhomesoneach

lot.In1988theSouthCarolinalegislaturepassedtheBeachfrontManagementActthatbarredthebuilding.TheAct’sstatedpurposewastoprotectpropertyfromstorms,tidesandbeacherosionandasanenvironmentalprotection.ThePetitionerdidnotchallengethestate’srighttopasstheActoritsjustificationsfordoingso.ThePetitionerdidclaimsthatthepassageoftheActresultedinatakingofthepropertysincehecannotuseitfortheintendedpurpose.

• Issue:Doestheno-buildregulationresultinacompensabletaking?• Holding:Yes.Itisunreasonableforastatetoprohibittheownerfromusingthelandasheoriginallyintended,unlessitcan

beshownthatthisuseresultsinanuisanceorthatgeneralpropertylawprohibitssuchause• TheSCobservedthatmandatedpreservationofprivatelandlookslikeaconversionofprivatepropertytopublic,a

classictaking.Regulationoflandusemustaccountforowners’traditionalunderstandingastothestatespowerovertheirpropertyrights.

• Ratio:Ifaregulationprohibitsalleconomicallybeneficialuseoflandandtheproscribedusecouldnothavebeenprohibitedunderagivenstate’snuisancelaw,theregulationisa“taking”whichrequires“justcompensation”tobepaidtothelandowner

LorettovTeleprompterManhattanVATVCorp• Facts:Alawwaspassedthatallowedacablecompanytoaccessallproperty.Lorettodidnotwanttoallowthis• Reasons:Thislawisataking.Ifitdeprivesyouoftherighttoexcludethenitisatakingperse(meanswedon’tneedtodo

adhocinquiry,itisfactuallycompensable)

18

MarinerRealEstateLtdvNovaScotia• Facts:Topreservethebeachanddunesystemasanenvironmentalandrecreationalresource,theprovinceofNSenacted

theBeachesAct,whichregulatestheuseofpublicandprivatebeaches.Anydevelopmentisprohibitedunlessauthorizationisobtained.Therespondentsappliedforauthorizationtodeveloptheirlandandweredenied.TheysoughtadeclarationthattheirlandshadbeendefactoexpropriatedbyvirtueoftheAct.TrialjudgeheldthattheyhadbeendeprivedoflandwithinthemeaningoftheExpropriationAct

• Reasons:o CanadiancourtsdonothavebroadmandatessimilartothoseintheUSo HerethetaskistodeterminewhetherregulationentitlesrespondentstocompensationundertheExpropriation

Act• Ratio:Establishestherequirementsforadefacto/constructivetakingatcommonlaw:

1) Anacquisitionofabeneficialinterestinthepropertyorflowingfromit§ Notnecessarytoestablishaforcedtransferofproperty,acquisitionofbeneficialinteresttothe

propertysuffices2) Theremovalofallreasonableusesofproperty–declineinvalueofland,evenwhendrastic,isnotlossof

interestinland§ Therequirementmustbeassessednotonlyinrelationtotheland’spotentialhighestandbestuse,

buthavingregardtothenatureofthelandandtherangeofreasonableusestowhichithasactuallybeenput

• InCanada,therighttocompensationmustbefoundinstatute• Useanancillarytest:

1) Whetherregulationissufficientlyseveretoremoveallrightsassociatedwiththepropertyholder—WasMarinerrealestatedeprivedofallitsuses?No:

§ Notexcludedfromproperty§ Couldstillexcludeothers§ Couldcamponit.§ Theonlythingtheycouldnotdoisbuildanythingofvalue

CanadianPacificRailwayCovVancouver• Facts:TheCPRwasgrantedastretchoflandoriginallyintendedforarailway.Astimepassedthelandwasnotusedforthis

purposeanymoreandurbandevelopmentsprangup.TheCPRputforwardproposalstodevelopthecorridorandindicatedthatiftheCityofanypublicbodywantedtoacquirethelanditwaswillingtosell.TheCitymadeclearthatitwouldnotbuythatlandandadoptedtheArbutusCorridorPlanBy-law.TheeffectofthisbylawwastofreezetheredevelopmentpotentialofthecorridorandtoconfineCPRtouneconomicusesoftheland

o CPRarguesthereisapresumptionthatthelegislatureintendedanytakingofpropertytobecompensated,andarguesthatbylimitingusethereisaneffectivetakingoftheland

• Reasons:o CPRhasnotsucceededinshowingthatthecityhasacquiredabeneficialinterestrelatingtotheland(itisnot

necessarytoestablishaforcedtransferofproperty,acquisitionofbeneficialinteresttothepropertysuffices)o Thebylawdoesnotremoveallreasonableusesofproperty/preventthemfromoperatingarailwayo Thelegislationspecificallystatesthattherewon’tbeanycompensation

• Holding:Thereisnotaking.Infavourofthedefendants• Ratio:Thereisnoexpropriationunlessthegovernmentacquiresthetitletothelandfromitsowner.Adefactotaking

requiresfirst,“anacquisitionofabeneficialinterestinthepropertyorflowingfromit”,andsecond,“removalofallreasonableusesoftheproperty”

o Thedecisionleavesthelawuncertainastowhetherownersmustbecompensatedforadefactotaking.Thedoormaybeopen,intheory,forsuccessfulclaimsinthefuture,butthethresholdisveryhighandwillnotbemetintheordinarycase–veryhighthreshold

o Showsthatcourtswillcontinuetoplayarelativelysmallroleinbalancingtheinterestsofprivatepropertyownersandpublicauthorities

EXPROPRIATIONPROVISIONSINFREETRADEANDINTERNATIONALINVESTMENTAGREEMENTSNAFTA,Article1110:ExpropriationandCompensation1. NoPartymaydirectlyorindirectlynationalizeorexpropriateaninvestmentofaninvestorofanotherPartyinitsterritoryor

takeameasuretantamounttonationalizationorexpropriationofsuchaninvestment("expropriation"),except:

19

a) forapublicpurpose;b) onanon-discriminatorybasis;c) inaccordancewithdueprocessoflawandArticle1105(1);andd) onpaymentofcompensationinaccordancewithparagraphs2through6.

2. Compensationshallbeequivalenttothefairmarketvalueoftheexpropriatedinvestmentimmediatelybeforetheexpropriationtookplace("dateofexpropriation")

TAKEAWAYS:• ThesereadliketheUSConstitutionoftheStates,

a. Nopropertyshallbetakenwithoutcompensation• Thesehavequasi-constitutionalstatus–cannotbebypassedthroughunilateralCanadianaction• ForeigninvestorshaveprotectionlikeprotectionundertheUSConstitutionAnnexB.13

a) IndirectexpropriationresultsfromameasureorseriesofmeasuresofaPartythathaveaneffectequivalenttodirectexpropriationwithoutformaltransferoftitleoroutrightseizure;

b) ThedeterminationofwhetherameasureorseriesofmeasuresofaPartyconstituteanindirectexpropriationrequiresacase-by-case,fact-basedinquirythatconsiders,amongotherfactors:(PennCentralTest)

i. Theeconomicimpactofthemeasureorseriesofmeasures,althoughthesolefactthatameasureorseriesofmeasuresofaPartyhasanadverseeffectontheeconomicvalueofaninvestmentdoesnotestablishthatanindirectexpropriationhasoccurred;

ii. Theextenttowhichthemeasureorseriesofmeasuresinterferewithdistinct,reasonableinvestment-backedexpectations;and

iii. Thecharacterofthemeasureorseriesofmeasures;c) Exceptinrarecircumstances,suchaswhenameasureorseriesofmeasuresaresosevereinthelightoftheirpurposethat

theycannotbereasonablyviewedashavingbeenadoptedandappliedingoodfaith,non-discriminatorymeasuresofaPartythataredesignedandappliedtoprotectlegitimatepublicwelfareobjectives,suchashealth,safetyandtheenvironment,donotconstituteindirectexpropriation.

TAKEAWAYS:

• Anindirectexpropriationisprotectedlikeadirectexpropriation• SoundslikeadhocanalysisfromUSRegulatoryTakings:

o Extentofdiminution–economicimpacto Whethertheregulationinterferedwithinvestmentbackedexpectationo Thenatureofthestateaction–charterofthemeasure

• CanadaisgivingmoreprotectiontoforeigninvestorsthenCanadians

Chapter3:TheBoundariesofProperty

PROPERTY,POVERTY,ANDTHERIGHTTOEXCLUDE• Onefunctionofpropertyistoprovideabasisforwhoisallowedtobewhere• Problemofhomelesspeoplehavingnoprivateplace–theideaofalllandinasocietybeingheldasprivatepropertywould

becatastrophicforhomelesspeople• Thecurrentemergenceofincreasingregulationofpublicplacestorestricttheactivitiesthatcanbeperformedthere(e.g.

sleepingonstreets)canhaveconsequences• RCEllicksonsuggeststhattheproblemofstreetorderisaproblemoflandmanagementandsuggeststhatcity’scodesof

conductshouldbeallowedtovaryspatially(systemofzoningwithred,yellow,andgreenzones,basedonthetragedyofthecommons)

• Waldronpositsthatindividualswhohavenoprivatespacetoguaranteelifesustainingactivitieshavetodotheseactivitiesinpublic,andsocietymusttakethisintoconsideration

20

Victoria(City)vAdams[2008]• Facts:Respondents,alongwithothers,hadsetupatentcityinapublicpark.Citysentthemanotetovacatebasedonthe

ParksRegulationBylawandtheStreetsandTrafficBylawofVictoria.Thesebylawsprohibiterectingatemporaryshelteronpublicproperty

• Issue:Doestheprohibitioninfringetherightsofhomelesspeopletolife,liberty,andthesecurityofthepersonnotinaccordancewiththeprinciplesoffundamentaljustice?

o Theissueoftherighttocampinpublicspacesinthesenseofarighttosetupasemi-permanentcampisnotbeforethecourt-theissuehereistheprohibitiononerectingevenatemporarysheltertakendowninthemorning

• Reasoning:o Cityclaimsthattherighttocamponpropertyrightsmakestheclaimaboutpropertyrights,andthatproperty

rightsdonotfallwithinthescopeofs.7o Theuseofaparkspacebyanindividualdoesnotnecessarilyinvolveadeprivationofanotherperson'sabilityto

utilizethesame"resource"o Defendantsarenotassertingapropertyright-don'twanttohaveanyoneexcludedordeterminetheuseofany

cityproperty-essentiallywhattheyareseekingdoesnotamounttoanexpropriationofpublicproperty,simplysayingthatthecitycannotmanageitsownpropertyinamannerthatinterfereswiththeirabilitytokeepthemselvessafeandwarm

o Effectoftheprohibitionistoimposesignificantandpotentiallysevereadditionalhealthrisks• Holding:Heldfortherespondents.Theinfringementisnotjustifiedpursuanttos.1oftheCharter.Theprohibitionon

takingatemporaryabodecontainedinthebylawsconstitutesaninterferencewithsection7• Ratio:

o Notapropertyright,butarighttobefreeofastate-imposedprohibitionontheactivityofcreatingorutilizingshelter

o WithouttheCharter,likelythatthecitywouldhavebeenabletoexclude§ BUTcityownsparksintrustforpeople,notlikeprivateproperty–citycannotexclude

DwyervStaunton• Facts:Thepublicroadwasblockedbysnow.Acitybulldozerhadclearedthepathasmuchasnecessarybuthadtogoonto

aprivatepropertytomaintaintheroad.Thedefendantwasstoppedbytheplaintifffordrivinghistruckacrosstheland• Issue:Canprivatepropertybeusedforpublicpurposesintimesofnecessity?• Reasons:Youcannotexcludealawfultravellerwhoneedstogothroughpropertybyanecessarycause.Publicneedis

prioritizedoverprivateproperty• Ratio:Atravellerwhoislawfullyusingapublicroadhastherighttogouponprivatelandsatplaceswherethepublicwayis

impassable,due,forexampletosnowandice.Musttakecasenottocauseanyunnecessarydamageo Thisshowsanotherlimitationonboundariesandtherighttoexclude

FontainebleauHotelv4525Inc• Facts:TherespondentsownedthehotelEdenRoc,andtheappellantsownedthehotelFontainebleau.Therespondentwas

seekinganinjunctionsoastostoptheappellantfromcontinuinganadditiontotheirhotelthatwouldconsequentlyblockthesunfromtheirpoolandsunbathingareas.Intheinferiorcourtthejudgehadgrantedatemporaryinjunctioninfavouroftheplaintiffunderthemaximsicuteretuoutalienumnonlaedas

o Thismaximmeansuseyourownpropertyinsuchamannerasnottoinjurethatofanother• Reasons:

o Theappellatecourtheldthatapropertyownermayputhisownpropertytoanyreasonableandlawfuluse,solongashedoesnottherebydeprivetheadjoininglandownerofanyrightofenjoymentofhispropertywhichisrecognizedandprotectedbylaw,andsolongashisuseisnotsomethingthatthelawwilldeterminetobeanuisance

o Thecourtdeterminedthattherespondentdidnothavelegalrighttothefreeflowoflightandairacrosstheadjoininglandofhisneighbour

o Thecourtdistinguishedbetweenapropertyusethatinjuresone'sneighbour,andonethatinjurestherightsofone'sneighbour

o Ifcommonlawdoesnotofferyouaremedy,itmustmeanthatyouhavenoright• Holding:Courtreversedthetemporaryinjunctiongrantedbytheinferiorcourtanddismissedthecomplaint

21

• Ratio:Alandownerdoesnothavealegalrighttothefreeflowoflightandairacrosstheadjoininglandofhisneighbour.Therighttohaveone’sviewremainunobstructedcannotbecreatedbyimplication;otherwise,propertydevelopmentwouldbehindered

Note:LimitsontheRighttoExclude

• Statutory:AlbertaHumanRightsActs.4and5o Apersoncannotexcludeanotherpersononthebasisofcertainprotectedcategories(ethnicity,religiousbeliefs,

etc.)ifthepropertyrightsareopentothepublic

LANDANDWATERBOUNDARIES

• TheLatinmaximthatwhoeverownsthesoil,holdstitleallthewayuptotheheavensanddowntothedepthsoftheeartho Thecourtshaveresistedapplyingthisliterallyo Cujusestsolummaybeausefulpointofdepartureinexaminingthescopeofownershiprights,butitissoladen

withqualificationsthatitisbestregardedasa“fancifulphrase”andan“imperfectguide”• Wehavethesebecausetheremustbeawaytoestablishanddecidethephysicalboundariesoftheproperty–especiallyif

sellingtheproperty• Aboundaryisanimaginarylinedrawntomarktheperimeterofaproperty.Thelocationmustbedescribedinaconveyance

documentcalledthelegaldescriptiono Thelegaldescriptionisnotalwayscontrollingo Itmaybeambiguous(nointernalcoherence),soextrinsicevidencemayaidindeterminingwhatwasmeanto Whentheintentionremainsunclear,itcanberesolvedbyfavouringonedescriptiveelementoveranother(usually

givethemosteffecttothosethingswhichareleastliabletomistakes–sothehighestregardisnaturalboundaries)

o Ambiguityisresolvedbyusingthenaturalmonumentanddisregardingthestatementofdistance• Rankingindescendingorderofimportanceoftheelementsusedinambiguouslegaldescriptions:

o Naturalmonumentso Linesactuallyrunandcornersactuallymarkedatthetimeofthegrant(e.g.artificialmonuments)o Abuttingestablishedboundariesifreferredtointhegrant(e.g.fences)o Coursesanddistances(measurementsinplan/metesandboundsdescription)

• Whenboundariesarenotagreedupon,theconventionallinedoctrinecanbeused(RobertsonvWallace)o Thoseportionsoftheboundarymarkedonthegroundbysurveymonumentsandshownonthemapsheetsbya

seriesofstraightlinesconnectingthesurveymonuments• Metesandbounds:Referstothenaturalmonumentsorfeaturesoftheland.Theseboundariesarenamedinthedeedand

neededtotracebacktheoriginsofthelando Example:treetowardstheboulderbythelake,etc.

• Certificateoftitlebyreferencetoacadastre:Canconveylandbyreferencetothatrecordinthecadastre(acomprehensivelandrecordingoftherealestateorrealproperty'smetes-and-bounds).Usuallyareferencetosomecentralplanorgeographiccoordinates

o Example:theLandTitlesAct • DominionLandSurvey1870:Partofthegovernment’seffortstosettleWesternCanada.Inordertobesold,thelandwas

carvedupintoparcels.Thissurveycovered800000squarekilometerslaidoutinagrid• Thetownshipsystem:Composedofmeridiansparallel

o Acolumnoftownshipsiscalledarangeo Atownshipis36sectionso Asectionis1x1mileso Aquartersectionis160acres(standardhomestead,mostcommonunitinAlbertao Smallerdivisionsincludelegalsubdivisionsto(40acres)

22

• DominionLandsAct,1879

o AfederallawunderwhichlandsinWesternCanadaweregrantedtoindividuals,colonizationcompanies,theHudson’sBayCompany,railwayconstruction,municipalitiesandreligiousgroups

o ItdevisedspecifichomesteadpoliciestoencouragesettlementintheWest,coveringeligibilityandsettlers’responsibilities,andoutlinedastandardmeasureforsurveyingandsubdividingland

o Included:§ Hudson’sBayCompanyLands:ss.17–21§ SchoolLands:ss.22–23§ TownandVillagelots:s32§ Landforchurches,cemeteries,etc.:s33§ Homesteadingprovisions:s34

• LanduseallocationinAlbertatoday:o Largelydividedintogreenandwhiteareaso White:settledareaoftheprovince–farming,municipalities,etc.

§ About3/4sisprivate,therestispublico Green:givenovertoforestmanagementcompanies(58%oftheprovince)o Landsunderfederaljurisdictionincludenationalparks,militarybases,andreserves

• Certificateoftitle:astateormunicipal-issueddocumentthatidentifiestheownerorownersofpersonalorrealproperty.Acertificateoftitleprovidesdocumentaryevidenceoftherightofownershipmainlyforrealestate

o Theonlyinterestsrecognizedinlandarethoseinacertificateoftitle–theGovernmentofAlbertaguaranteesthistitlealmostfully

o ThisisascloseaswegettoowningthelandbecausetheCrownactuallyownsito Theorderonthetitlegoesmeridian,range,township,andsectiono Section62oftheAlbertaLandTitlesActprovidesaguaranteeoftheownerofthelandbeingtherealowner,

wherenoonecandenythisownershipclaim,butthecertificateoftitledoesnotguaranteetheboundariesoftheproperty

o Section60oftheLandTitlesActsaysthattheonlylegalinterestsinlandinAlbertaarethoserecordedinacertificateoftitle

• TorrensSystem:o InplaceinAlberta,operatesundertheauthorityoftheLandTitlesAct.StatesthattheGov’tofAlbertahad

custodyofalloriginaltitles,documents,andplans,andhasthelegalresponsibilityforthevalidityandsecurityofallregisteredlandtitlesinfo.Thegov’tguaranteestheaccuracyofalltitles.Ideaiftoguaranteeaccuracysoifanerroroccursthereiscompensationavailable

o Operatesunderthreeprinciples:

23

§ Mirrorprinciple:thetitletopropertywillreflectcompletelyandaccuratelyallcurrentfactsofthetitle§ Curtainprinciple:thecurrentcertificateoftitlecontainsallinformationaboutthetitle,soitisnot

necessaryforaninterestedpersonsuchasapotentialbuyertoworryaboutanypastdealingswiththeproperty

§ Insuranceprinciple:aninsurancefundisinplacetocompensateanyonewhosuffersalossasaresultofamistakebeingmadeaboutthevalidityoraccuracyofatitle

LANDBOUNDEDBYWATER

• Commonlawdistinguishesamongwaterformationsdependingonwhethertheyarenavigableortidal–atcommonlaw

thereisapresumptionthattheboundaryoflandthatisadjacenttoanon-tidalriverextendstothemiddleoftheriver,unlessdocumentsoftitlestateotherwise

• Whenthebodyofwateristidal,ownershipextendsonlytotheordinaryormeanhighwatermark-seawardofthistheCrownhastitle

PublicLandsAct:• ThetitletothebedsandshoresofallpermanentandnaturallyoccurringbodiesofwaterisvestedintheCrowninrightof

Alberta

SurveysAct:• Thebedandshoreofabodyofwatershallbethelandcoveredsolongbywaterastowrestitfromvegetationorasto

markadistinctcharacteronthevegetationwhereitextendsintothewaterofonthesoilitselfo Rule:thelinewherethereisnomoreaquaticvegetationistheboundarywhereprivateownersinterestbegins

• Riparianrights:Theallocatingofrightstouseabodyofwaterbyindividualswhoownpropertyaroundsaidbodyofwater–includesrightofaccesstothewater

ErikvMcDonald• Facts:Alloftheparties’ownpropertythatbordersonthePedersenreservoir.Duetothetopographytheappellantsown

thelandbothonthenorthandsouthsideofthebay,andhaveconstructedafenceacrossthewaterbetweenthesepartsoftheirparcelwhichhastheeffectofisolatingthesmallbayofthereservoirwhichborderstherespondent'slandsandpreventsthemfromusingthebulkofthereservoir.

o Trialjudgeconcludedthatshedidn'thavetodecideifthePedersenreservoirwasanaturallyoccurringbodyofwater,becauseunders.3(2)oftheWaterActtheCrownowns"thepropertyinandtherighttothediversionanduseofallwaterintheprovince".Eveniftheappellantsownedthebedofthereservoirtheydidn'townthewaterandcouldn'tpreventtherespondentsfromusingit

• Issue:Dotheappellantsownthewaterorthebedofthereservoir,sothattheycanexcludeothersfromitsuse?• Reasons:

o Commonlawpositionisthattheownerofthelandowneditfromthedepthsoftheearthtotheheavens,butoneexceptioninthePublicLandsAct(2000)statesthatthetitletothebedsandshoresofallpermanentandnaturallyoccurringbodiesofwaterisvestedintherightofAlberta

o Riparianaccesstowaterispreservednomatterwhat,soregardlessofwhoownsthebed,theycannotinterferewithaccesstothewater

o Thereislegislationtosaythatwaterisnotseenasnotnaturallyoccurringsimplybecauseitwasdammed• Holding:Provinceownsthereservoirandthewater.Appellantsandrespondentsmaintainanequalcommonlawriparian

rightofaccesstoit.Afencewouldinterferewiththecommonlawrightsoftherespondents.Appealdismissed• Ratio:

o Whereawaterbodyisconsidered“naturallyoccurring”boththewaterandthebedwillbelongtotheprovinceo Wherethewaterbodyisnotnaturallyoccurring,thebedofthewaterbodywillstillbelongtotheholderofthe

titlebutthewaterwillbelongtotheprovince

ACCRETION

• Atcommonlaw,ariparianlandownerisentitledtotheextensionoflandthroughaccretion

24

• MUSTBEGRADUALANDIMPERCEPTBLE–itistheprogressoftheaccretionthatmustbeimperceptible,nottheresulto Itissaidthatimperceptiblecriteriaaremetsolongasthechanges“cannotbeobservedinitsactualprogressfrom

momenttomomentorfromhourtohour”o Canalsooccurthroughnon-naturalforces,e.g.thebuildingofadamupstream,aslongasitwasn’talandowner

whobroughtabouttheresult• Theoperationofaccretionmaybeexcludedinagrantingdocument

RobertsonvWallace:• TheRobertsontitlereadthat"alltheportionofsectionxthatliestotheeastandsouthofthewestbankofHighwood

River"andtheWallacetitleread"allthatportionofsectionxthatlieswestandnorthofthewestbankoftheHighwoodRiver"

• Later,naturaleventsoccurredthatendedupaddinglandonthewestbank,andanislandinexistenceatthetimeofthegrantsbecamepartofthewestbank.Wallaceclaimedtheseareas

• Thisclaimfailed-ontheevidenceitwasshownthatthechangehadbeenrapid,andwasnotgradualandimperceptiblewhichisthelegaltestforaccretion.Thereforetheoriginallocationoftheriverstilldefinedtheboundary

• Why?o Oneideaisthatanadditiontolandmaybetoominuteandvaluelesstoappearworthyoflegaldisputeorseparate

ownership§ "Thatwhichcannotbeperceivedinitsprogressistakentobeasifitneverhadexistedatall"

o Helpstomaintainwateraccessforownersandprotectsthepublicinterestintheuseofnavigablewaters-thepresumptionofaccretionhelpsfurtherthesegoalsandmaintainsthewater'sedgeasthepropertyboundarybetweenthepublicandprivate

o Alwayslimitedbycertificateoftitle

SUBSURFACERIGHTS

• Thereisapotentialanticommonsproblemwithallowingsurfaceownerstopossesstheentiresliveroflandbeneaththeirproperty–attemptstoassemblethesesliversoftitlecouldbethwartedbyholdouts

• Theresultingfragmentationmayinterferewiththeneedsofnewtechnology,suchascarbonsequestration• Themeansofaccesstothesubsurfaceareessentiallythesamefortheownerofthesurfaceandforsomeotherprivate

landowner,sothereisn’tadifferenceinthetechnologiesusedbythecompetingclaimantsasthereisinconnectionwithairspace

o Potentialusesforallownersofsubsurfaceareidentical!

EdwardsvSims(1929)• Facts:acavedevelopedasatouristattractionbyEdwards,onwhoselandthecave'sentrancewaslocated.Aboutonethird

ofthecavewaslocateddirectlybelowthelandsofLee.Thisportionwasinaccessibletohim.LeecommencedanactionagainstEdwardsfortrespass.Primaryissueherewaswhetherasurveyofthecavecouldbeordered

• Issue:Doesthecourthavethepowertoinvadetherightofownershipforthepurposeofdeterminingthetruthofthematterathand?

• Rulesfromthemajority:o Thesurfaceownerhasclearandlegallyprotectablecontrolinsidetheboundaryline(exclusivityisrespected)o Byextendingrightstothedepthsoftheearththegreatestpossibleareaoflandismadeownable(universality)o Theclearnessoftherulereducesthetransactioncoststhatmightbeproducedbytheneedtodeterminewho

hastitletowhatland–thiscertaintyfacilitatesexchange(transferability)• Holding:Thecourthastheinherentpowerindependentofstatutetocompelamineownertopermitaninspectionofhis

worksatthesuitofapartywhocanshowreasonablegroundforsuspicionthathislandsarebeingtrespassedon• Dissent(LoganJ.)

o Trueprincipleisthatthemanwhoownsthesurface,withoutreservation,ownsnotonlylanditself,buteverythingabove,upon,orunderitwhichhemayuseforhisprofitapleasure,andwhichhemaysubjecttohisdominionandcontrol.Furtherthanthathisownershipshouldnotextend

o Showsprinciplesoflegalrealism,hintsthatheproposedthissolutionthatwassofarfromcommonlawprinciplesbecauseofotherintentions

§ Cavewarsseenasaproblem,federallegislationhadnomoneytoacquirethecavesandturnthemintoanationalpark,soonecaveownerwouldbecheapertobuythantwo

25

o Thisdissentisalotlessclearthanthebrightlineruleshowninthemaxim,althoughintermsofeconomicefficiencyitmakesmoresensethatsoleownershipshouldgototheowneroftheentrance(preventsholdouts)

EconomicPerspectiveontheGreatOnyxCaves• ThedissentingopinionofLoganJ.inthecasedrawsheavilyonrhetoricusedinrelationtotheeconomic,desertandlabour

justificationsusedforprivateproperty• BUTwouldtheminorityrulehavebeenapplicableifneitherpartyhadeasyaccesstothecaverns?Ifso,wouldownership

havebeenbasedonaracetothesubsurface?(Potentiallyattheexpenseofthegeologicaltreasureunderneath)• Themajorityruleisn’tjustanendorsementofselfishness–therightofcontrolofland(orotherproperty)isanaspectof

thefreedomthatspringsfromprivateproperty• Inthisreadingitmightbeassumedthatmostpeoplewillactrationallyinpursuingtheirselfinterest,andifthisisso,then

theownerofthelandshouldbewillingtoallowotherstouseitiftheincentivetodosoishighenougho Basicallythemajorityholdingthatgivestheownerofthesurfaceabsoluterightsofownershipcanbasisof

economicefficiency–premiseisthatweallhaveourprice• Ifwewanttodesignapropertyregimethatallocatesefficiently,thesystemshouldseektopromoteexclusivity,

universality,andtransferabilityo Arulethatisbasedonexplorationislessprecisethanonevestingabsoluterightsinthesurfaceowner

• Ifthemajorityruleisanefficientone,thentheharmtothecaveoperatorshouldn’tbeasirreparableasthedissentclaims–BcouldbuytherighttousethecavesfromA

o Fromanefficiencyperspective,thedeterminationofwhetherornotthecaveswillbeusedasatouristattractiondependsontherespectivefinancialinterestsofAandB,NOTonthelegalallocationestablishedthroughlitigation

o Assumingthepartiescanbargainwithouthightransactioncosts,therighttothecavewillgotothepartywhovaluesitthemost,andthelegalallocationwillaffectmerelywhopayswhomandhowmuch(COASETHEREOM)

§ Theeconomicfunctionoflawsistoinfluencethepricesthatarepaidforvariouscommodities

StarEnergyWealdBasinLtdvBocardoSA• AcaseinvolvingpetroleumandnaturalgaswellsthatweredrilleddiagonallyonA'slandandextendedunderB'sproperty,

thecourtheldthattitleextendedtothedepthsatissuebutcastdoubtonthemaxim• Recognizedthatthismaximmaynotbeapplicablefarbelowtheearth'scrust,butthatinthecaseathanditdidn'textend

thatfarandsotheapplicationwasnotabsurdhereNote:Inmanystatesporespaceisvestedintheownerofthesurface,butinAlbertatheMinesandMineralsAct(2000)deemsallporespacetobe,andhavealwaysbeen,thepropertyoftheCrown

THERIGHTSTOMINESANDMINERALS

• Thecommonlawruleisthatmineralsexceptgoldandsilverarepartofthelanditselfandbelongprimafacietotheownerofthesoil,andtheowneroftheland

o Itispresumedthatthelandownershipalsoincludesthemineralsintheland(unlessotherwisestated)o Inrealitythisruledoesn’tapply–therearesomanyexceptionsthatitessentiallyonlyappliestotheCrownnow

• Generallyonceownershipofamineralestatehasbeengranted,asalebetweenprivateindividualswillpassminesandmineralsautomaticallyunlessthoseinterestsarespecificallyreserved

• Absentstatutoryguidance,thequestionofwhatcountsasamineralisdeterminedbytheparties’intentionsatthetimeofthegrant(sominesandmineralsiscapableofhavingawidevarietyofmeanings)

• Threemainprinciples:1. TheVernacularTest:todecideifasubstanceis"mineral",thetestlookstoseeifitwasconsideredtobesointhe

vernacularofminers,commercialpeople,andlandowners(prefersthevernacularoverthescientific)2. PurposesandIntentionsTest:whereregardishadnotonlyforthewordsusedtodescribethingsreserved,butalsofor

theleadingpurposeorobjectthatthedeedorstatuteembodiesi. E.g.grantingoflandforagriculturalpurposeswiththeguaranteecovenantingtocultivate

3. ExceptionalOccurrencesTest:thattheword"minerals"inareservationdoesn'tincludetheordinaryrock,butonlyexceptionalandraresubstances

• Surfaceandmineralrightscamewiththepurchaseoflanduntiltheearly1900s.Afterthistheyhavebeenownedbythegovernmentandcan’tbepurchased,onlyleasedbyindividualsandcompanies

26

• Thedispositioniscalledagrant.Whentherearetermsplacedonitthereisareservationofthegrant,wherethegrantorgrantstheinterestinlandbutreservessomethingwithinit

MINERALTITLEDISPUTES

BorysvCPR• Facts:CPR’soriginalgrantfromtheCrownincludedallminesandminerals.CPRgrantedsomeofthelandstosettlers,

reservingforitselfthe“coal,petroleum,andvaluablestone”.Naturalgasisthendiscoveredundertheland• Issue:Isnaturalgasreservedinthecategoryofcoal,petroleum,andvaluablestone,orisitdifferent?• Reasons:

o Althoughthereislittlechemicaldistinctionbetweenpetroleumandgas,thevernaculartestprevails.Insitupetroleumisliquid,andgasisgas

• Holding:o CPRdoesnotownthegasbecauseitdidn’treservetherightstoitself,sotherights/gasbelongtothesurface

owner• Ratio:

o Thiscaseillustrateswhatacourtmightbefacedwith–thereisagrantthatreservessomething,thensomethingelseisdiscovered.Needtodetermineifthenewthingfallsundertheinitialcategory

RightofEntry

1) Atcommonlaw:a. Ifyouownthelandatcommonlaw,youhavetherightofaccess.Youdon’tneedthesurfaceowner’spermission

toworktheminerals.Can’tcauseunnecessarydamageb. InAlberta,thiswasoverwrittenbylegislation(SurfaceRightsAct,s12)

SurfaceRightsActc. Mustnegotiatewiththesurfaceownersothatthesurfaceownerwillprofit,oratleastnotbeharmedifyou

wanttoenterthepropertyd. Iftheycan’tcometoanagreement,theSurfaceRightsBoardwillgiveanestimateofcompensationtobegivento

thesurfaceownere. Rightofentry-Anoperatorneedstoobtaintheconsentoftheownerandtheoccupantofthesurfaceoftheland

inordertoenterthesurfaceofthelandfortheremovalofminerals,forconstruction,orforincidentsrelatingtoconstruction,ORhasbecomeentitledtorightofentrybyreasonofanorderoftheBoardpursuanttothisAct

ImportantActs:

PublicLandsAct

s.35(1):“Allminesandmineralsandtherighttoworkthemare,byimplicationandwithoutthenecessityforanyexpresswordsofexception,exceptedfromeverydispositionandnotificationmadeunderthisAct.”

a. IfthereareprovincialCrownlandsgrantedtoanownertoday,theownerwouldnotgetanyminesormineralsunlesstheyareexpresslygranted

b. ACrowngrantistakentoreserveminesandmineralsimpliedly

MinesandMineralsActs.10

s.10:“ItisherebydeclaredthatnograntfromtheCrown,whetherrelatingtoland,mineralsinlandorotherwise,hasoperatedorwilloperateasaconveyanceofgoldandsilverunlessgoldandsilverareexpresslynamedandconveyedinthegrant.”

27

MinesandMineralsActs.1

S1:"minerals"meansallnaturallyoccurringminerals,andwithoutrestrictingthegeneralityoftheforegoing…”

c. Thislegislationwasintendedtoallowthelandownerstoprofit,wheretheycouldrecoverthemineralsbysurfaceoperationwithouttheneedtomine

LawofPropertyAct

S7(1):“...everyinstrumenttransferringlandoperatesasanabsolutetransferofallrightandtitlethatthetransferorhasinthelandatthetimeofitsexecution,unlessacontraryintentionisexpressedinthetransferorconveyance.”

AIRSPACERIGHTS

DidowvAlbertaPowerLtd[1988]• Facts:AlbertaPowerLtdconstructedapowerlineonthemunicipalroadallowancealongthesideoftheappellant’sland.

Thesepowerpolesareonlytwofeetfromtheappellant’slandandthecross-armsconductorsextend6feetintotheairspaceabovetheappellant’sland.Thetrialjudgeheldthatitdidn’tinterferewiththeappellant’spossessionofairspacebecausethereisnodecreasedenjoymentoftheproperty

• Issue:Hastherespondenttrespassedontheairabovetheappellant’sland?• Reasons:

o TheLatinmaximcujusestsolumisreferenced–thisestablishesthatintrusionbyanartificialorpermanentstructureintotheairspaceofanotherisforbiddenasatrespass

o Twogroups:§ Casesinvolvingpermanentstructuralprojectionsintotheairspaceaboveanother’sland(thisisgenerally

heldtoconstituteatrespass)§ Casesinvolvingatransientinvasionintotheairspaceaboveanother’slandataheightnotlikelyto

interferewiththelandowner(unlikelytoaffectthelandowner,e.g.airplanes)o Inthiscasethecourtdoesnotconsiderthesecondgroupappropriatebecauseaircraftshouldnotbeequatedwith

powerlines(muchlessinterference)o HaddadJ.A.holdsthattheapplicationoftheLatinmaximshouldbebalancedincompromisingtherightsof

landownersagainstthegeneralpublic.Thisbalancecouldinvolverestrictingtherightsofanownerintheairspaceabovehislandtotheheightnecessaryfortheordinaryuseandenjoymentofhislandandthestructuresonit(allowstechnologicalgrowthtobeaccommodated)

• Holding:Appealallowed.Thecross-armsamounttoatrespass• Ratio:Alandownerisentitledtofreedomfrompermanentstructureswhichinanywayimpingeupontheactualor

potentialuseandenjoymentofhislando Conceptsestablishedhere:

§ CourtswillnotalwaysgiveliteraleffecttotheLatinmaxim§ Theproperremedyforinterferencewithalandowner’sairspacewithapermanentfixtureistrespass,as

opposedtonuisanceNotes:Followingthedismissaloftheapplicationforleavetoappeal,AlbertaamendedtheHydroandElectricActsoitnowpermitsthetypeofairspaceintrusionsthatwereanissuehere,anddoesn’tprovidecompensationforthis

• Thisisforpolicyreasons–ifthiswasn’tenacted,theneveryownerwherepowerlinesintrudedovertheirlandwouldbeeligible.Costswouldbedramaticallyincreased.Needsofmanybringprovidedpowerversustheindividualneedofeachpersonfortheirpersonalproperty

• Nowthegovernmentdoesn’thavetodothecostbenefitanalysiswhendecidingwhetherornottointrudeonland

ECONOMICEFFICIENCY

• Thisplaysanimportantroleinthedesignofpropertyrules–needtothinkaboutwhatisthemorevaluableuseoftheairspace/land

• Economicefficiencyisabouttheefficientallocationofresources.Propertyshouldendupinthehandsofthosewhovalueitthemost

28

• Wecanalwaysreachefficientallocationthroughtrade–thisisCoasetheorem

CoaseTheorem&Propertyvs.LiabilityRules–alsoseeGreatOnyxCavesIntheabsenceoftransactioncostsanyinitialassignmentofrightswillleadtoanefficientresult

• Basically,thatifthepartiescanbargain,thentheinitialallocationisn’timportantbecauseitcanstillbereachedintheend.Itisthemarketthatdeterminestheultimateuseofresources

• Propertyrights/airspacerightsarethereforefactorsofproduction–ifweassignrightsinthosefactorsofproduction,theycanbetradedsotheyendupinthehandsthepartieswhovaluethemthemost

• Transactioncosts:whatmightimpedebargainingo Collectiveactionproblems–freeridingandhandoutso Strategicbargaining–bilateralmonopolies(endupwithalackofproductivitybecauseitproducesonlystrategic

behaviourandfriction)o Non-productivecosts–costsofcontracting,monitoring,andenforcing

• Coasestatesthatwhentransactioncostsarehigh,bargainingmightfailHowlegalrulescanminimizetransactioncosts:

1) Thelawshouldmimicthemarketa. Trytoaccomplishwhatthemarketwoulddoinaworldwithouttransactioncosts

2) Assignpropertytothelikelyhighestvalueuser3) Choosearemedytoprotecttheentitlement

a. Choosea“propertyrule”(injunction)whentransactionsarelikelytobesmoothi. Thisisarulethatprotectsyourentitlementsothatitcannotbetakenorinfringedupon,sothetransfer

priceissetbyyouatnegotiationb. Choosea“liabilityrule”(damages)whencourtsaremoreeffective

i. Aliabilityruleprotectsyourrightsinadifferentway–entitlementistakenaway/infringedupon,andthenacourtretroactivelysetsthepriceforyourentitlement

c. Howtochoosebetweenthese:conventionalthinkingisthatifwethinkbargainingisrelativelystraightforward,weprotecttheentitlementsbyapropertyruleandleavethepartiestoworkitoutthemselves.Ifweanticipateabreakdownofthebargainingprocessorhightransactioncosts,usealiabilityrule

FIXTURES

• Achattelthatbecomessufficientlyattachedtothelandmaybetransformedintoafixture,therebyformingpartoftherealty

• Whenchattelbecomesafixture,itceasestobepersonalpropertyandthetitletothatitemissubsumedintothatofrealty• Thedeterminationofwhetherachattelhasbeentransformedintoafixtureisamatterofintention,objectivelydetermined

–thisisdeterminedbyexaminingthedegreeandobject(purpose)ofannexationo Theobjectivetestofintentionismainlyaimedatprotectingthirdpartieswhomaybedealingwiththelandat

somefuturepoint.Byrelyingonexternalfactors,thirdpartieswhomaybeunawareofsomeexistingcontractualrelationscan,intheory,knowwhetheragivenitemisachattelorafixture

• Whenachattelisattachedtotheland,howeverslightly,arebuttablepresumptionisraisedthattheitemhasbecomeafixture

o Extentoftheattachmenttendstoaffectthestrengthofthatpresumptiono Thepresumptionisreversedifthechattelisrestingonitsownweighto Thesolegroundfortherebuttalofthesetwopresumptionsistheobject/purposeofannexation

• Twostagesforassessingfixtures:o Firstquestiontodecideiswhetherornotthepersonaltybecameafixture(usethefixturestestfromLaSalle)

§ Whatisthedegreeofannexation?• Anyphysicalattachmentgivesrisetoaviablepresumptionthatthechattelistransformedtoa

fixture• Generallyitemsrestingontheirownweightorthosethataremerelypluggedinwouldbe

chattelsunlessappreciabledamagewouldresultfromtheirremoval• Whenequipmentisattachedtoastructure,allofitscomponentsaregenerallyregardedas

fixtures,evenapartthatcanberemovedeasilyifremovalofthatpartwouldrenderthemachine/fixtureinoperative

29

§ Whatistheobjectorpurposeofannexation?• Wasthepurposeoftheattachmenttoenhancethelandhavingregardtotheland’sintended

use?(fixtureexists)• Wasthepurposeoftheattachmentforthebetteruseofthechattelasachattel?(affixation

doesn’tmakepartoftherealty)• Shouldbeassessedobjectively,asitappearstotheworld• Itemsnotphysicallyfixedtothelandmayberegardedasfixturesiftheyappeartointendtobe

partoftheland(e.g.garagedooropener)• Ifanitemisphysicallyaffixedtothelandbutthepurposeofannexationistomakethat

personaltybetterormorevaluable,ratherthantoimprovetheland,thenitcouldbeseentohaveretaineditsstatusaspersonalty

o Ifitisafixture,askwhathappenstotheexistinginterestinboththechattelandtheland

ClashofSecurityInterests• Underthecommonlawthegeneralruleisthatwhenchattelbecomesaffixeditfallsunderlandsecurity• Thus,thesecurityholderofthechattellosestherightofrepossessionandisonlyleftwithanactiononthedebtagainstthe

purchaser• ThesedisputesareregulatedbystatuteinCanada:

o InAlbertaasecurityinterestinachattelwillnormallyenjoypriorityoverasubsequentlandmortgageifthat(chattel)securityinterestistakenbeforetheitembecomesafixture

o Regulationofthisinterestisrequiredtoprotectthechattelsecurityagainstpriormortgage–failuretoregisteritinthelandtitlesofficewillleadtoalossofpriorityoverthosewhodealsubsequentlywiththelandowneronthefaithoftheregister

LaSalleRecreationsvCamdex• Facts:Theowneroftherealty(VillaMotorHotel)getfinancingfromtheirproject.TheyborrowthemoneyfromCamdex

Investments,andgivethemamortgageontheland(securityinterest).Villabuysthecarpetingfromthevendor,butthemoneyisnotpaidrightaway.Thevendormakesitaconditionalsalesagreementwheretheystipulatethatthevendorretainstitletothecarpetuntilthepurchasepriceispaidinfull.Villanowhastwoliabilities-toCamdexandtothevendorforthecarpet.Then,Villagoesbankrupt.

o Thevendorsaysthatishiscarpet,sotheyshouldgetitregardlessofanythingelse.Camdexsaystheyhaveamortgageonthelandandthereisnocarpet,itisafixturesoalltherightinitaresubsumedintherealty

o Ifthecarpetisdeemedtobeafixture,thevendorloses.Theonlychanceisforthecourttosaythatitisstillacarpetandnotpartoftherealty

• Issue:Isthecarpetafixtureorrealty?• Reasons:

o FixturesTest:madeupoftwoquestions§ Whatisthedegreeofannexation?

• Howisthethingconnectedtotheland?• Anyphysicalattachment,howeverweak,givesrisetoaviablepresumptionthatthechattelhas

beentransformedintoafixture• Contrarypresumptionthatanythingnotphysicallyattachedispresumednottobefixture

§ Whatistheobjectorpurposeofannexation?• Shouldbeassessedobjectively,asitappearstotheworld• Itemsnotphysicallyfixedtothelandmayberegardedasfixturesiftheyappeartointendtobe

partoftheland(e.g.garagedooropener)• Ifanitemisphysicallyaffixedtothelandbutthepurposeofannexationistomakethat

personaltybetterormorevaluable,ratherthantoimprovetheland,thenitcouldbeseentohaveretaineditsstatusaspersonalty

• Doesn’tmatterifthereisacontractthatstipulatesotherwise

ReDavis• Caseaboutwhetherbowlingalleyswerechattelsorfixtures• Testherewasiftheobjectofaffixingofchattelsistoimprovethefreehold,thenevenifthechattelsareonlyslightly

affixedtotherealty,theymaywellbecomepartoftherealty

30

• Iftheobjectoftheaffixationofthechattelsisthebetterenjoymentofthechattels,thentheaffixationdoesnotmakethempartoftherealty

TenantsFixtures• Certainfixturesthatareinstalledbytenantsaresubjecttospecialrulesfordetachment-basicgoverningprinciplesforthese

tenantsfixturesarelaidoutinFrankGeorgesInvestmentsLtdvOceanFarmersLtd• Thesefixturesbecomepartofthefreeholdbutcanstillbesevered.Onceseveredtheystopbeingfixturesandstartbeing

chattelagain• Tenantsrightofrestorationissubjecttofourconsiderations:

1) Atcommonlawtheitemsmustfallwithinasetofprotectedfixturesinordertoberemoved(includesitemsattachedforthepurposesoftrade,ornamentation,ordomesticconvenience)

2) Removalmaybeprecludedifitwillcauseseriousdamagetotheproperty3) Theimpliedrightofdetachmentmaybeabridgedbyacontract4) Musthavetimelyremoval–havetoactbeforethetermhasrunitscourse(sometimesforareasonable

periodafterwards)(CarabinvOffman)

DiamondNeonLtdvToronto-DominionRealty• Facts:ThesignswereputonthelandunderacontractbetweenDiamondandatenantontheland,Uptown.Therewasa

contractbetweenthetwothatstatedthedisplaysremainDiamond’spropertyandwillnotbedeemedfixtures.ThelandwasownedbyWesternCanadianPropertiesandleasedtoUptown.Eventually,UptowntransferredthatleasetoDueckalongwiththecontractforthesigns.DueckenteredintoanewleaseforthesignswithDiamond.WhentheleasebetweenDueckandDiamondexpired,andDueck'sleaseofthelandexpired,thesignswereleftthere.WesternCanadianthensoldthelandtoTD.TDhadnoknowledgeofanycontractrelatingtothesigns.TDsoldthesignstoNettieHoldings.

• Issue:Whenthedefendantspurchasedtheland,weretheseitemsfixtures?(ifso,thenitisconversion)• Reasons:

o Evenifthedefendantdidhavenoticeoftheclaim6monthsafterbuyingtheland,thisnoticecouldn’taffectthecharacterofthearticlesbecausetheyhadalreadybeenpassedonwiththeconclusionofthesale

o Thedefendantcouldn’tbeaffectedbythecontractsfortheleasingoftheitemsbecauseitdidn’thaveknowledgeofthemwhenitboughttheland

o Thedefendantacquiredtitletothesignswhenitboughttheland,sowhenitsoldthemtherewasnoconversion• Holding:Heldfortherespondents.Thedegreeandobjectofannexationbutsupporttheconclusionthatthesignshad

becomepartoftherealtybeforethedefendantboughttheland• Ratio:Thisisanissueoftenant’sfixtures–attheendoftheleasetheyhavetherighttodisconnectthefixturesand

restorethembacktochattelstatus.WhenDueckfailedtoexercisetherighttoremovethefixtures,Diamondshouldhavetakenactiontoremovethem

PersonalPropertySecurityAct• Ifyouhaveasecurityinterestorlease,youcanprotectyourinvestmentbyregisteringyouragreementunderthePPSAand

undertheLandTitlesAct• Thesolescopeissecurityinterestoverachattel

TRANSFORMATIONOFPROPERTYINCHATTELS

• Thishappenswhenchattelsbelongingtotwoormorepeoplebecomesomehowconnected.Itdealswiththequestionofwhoownstheobjectunderdispute

• 3types:o Confusion:occurswhenfungibleitemsareinseparablycombined

§ E.g.A’sapplesbecomemixedwithB’sapples§ Authorizedconfusion(donewhenpursuanttoacontract)

• Rightsasagreed§ Innocent:innocentmistake

• Theownersaresaidtobecomeownersinproportionateshare• 50/50contributionsifknown

31

§ Wrongful:negligentlydone• Oldrule:culpritlosesallrights(punitive,canbetooharshbecausetheyloseallthepropertythey

actuallyhad)• Newrule(IndianOil,Glencore):saysthattheybecomeownersinproportionateshares,

reflectingthequalityandquantityofthecontributions.Anydoubtisresolvedagainstthewrongfulpartyandiftheinnocentpartysufferedalossasaresulttheyarealsoentitledtodamages(equitable)

o Accession:Itemsthatareinitiallydistinguishablefromoneanothercanbecomeinextricablyfused§ E.g.ArebuildsanengineonlytodiscoverthatthepartswerestolenandbelongtoB§ Generalruleisthattheownerofthemotheracquirestitletotheprogeny(seeCavalierYachts)§ Mustidentifytheprincipalchattel

o Alteration:Achattelisfundamentallytransformed§ Titlewillbeaffectedonlywhenthegoodsaresubstantiallytransformed(towhatdegreethisisisn’tclear

inthejurisprudence)§ E.g.A’sironpolesaremadeintoawrought-irongate

GlencoreInternationalAGvMetroTradingInternationalInc(Confusion)• Facts:MetroTradingInternational(MTI)wasacompanythatmixed,bought,andsoldoil.5differentcompanieshadcontracts

forthestorageofoilinMTI'sfacilityinFujairah(intheUnitedArabEmirates).Theoilwasstoredinawaythatitwascommingledwithoilofsimilarquality.MetroOil,acompanyassociatedwithMTI,hadenteredintoarefiningcontractwithoneofthecompanieswithacontract,Texco.TexcowastoprovideMTIwithcrudeoiltoberefinedbyMetroinexchangeforquantitiesoftherefinedoil.Thismeantthatitwasn'tonlytheownershipofoilthatwasinquestion,butalsotheownershipofoilthatwastransformedintoanewproducto MTIwentintobankruptcy-atthispointtherewasonly750000tonnesofoilintheirfacility,andthereshouldhave

been2.5million• Issue:Whatsystemoflawgovernedthetransactionsinplace?

o Thiscasedealswithwhatwasleftoutofthepreviouscase-theeffectofproprietaryinterestsofthewrongfulandirreversiblemixingofgoodsofdifferentkinds

• Reasons:o CitedIndianOilCorporationLtdvGreenstoneShipping-thiscasecreatedthenewruleforcommingling,statesthat

whereBwrongfullymixesthegoodsofAwithgoodsofhisown(whichareofthesamenatureandquality)andtheycan'tbeseparated,themixtureisheldincommonandAisentitledtoreceiveoutofitaquantityequaltothatofhisgoodswhichwentintothemixture.HeisalsoentitledtoclaimdamagesfromBforlossessuffered

o TrueprincipleofEnglishlawisthatpropertyinchattelsisnotlostsimplybecausetheyareprocessedintoanewform-greaterconcernontheoriginofthenewcommoditythanonthefactthatanewcommodityhasbeencreated

• Thetrueownerisalwaysentitledtotaketheirpropertybackinitsnewshapedespiteanyformofalteration,ifhecanidentifytheminthatnewcommodityandshowthatitiswhollyofsubstantiallycomposedofthem

o Propositionthatanewcommodityautomaticallybelongstoitsmanufacturerwithsomecare-notasettledprinciple,especiallyifthemanufacturerisawrongdoer

• Ratio:o Whenonepersonwrongfullyblendshisownoilwithoilofadifferentgradeorspecificationbelongingtoanother

personwiththeresultthatanewproductisproduced,thatnewproductisownedbythemincommono Theproportionsinwhichtheyownthenewblendshouldreflectboththequantityandthevalueoftheoilwhicheach

hascontributedo Anydoubtsaboutquantityorvalueshouldberesolvedagainstthewrongdoero Innocentpartyalsoentitledtorecoverdamagesinrespectofanylosssuffered

McKeownvCavalierYachtsPtyLtd(1988)(Accession)• Issue/Facts:Competingclaimstotheownershipofayacht.Theplaintiffownedalaminatedhullthatwassupposedtobe

turnedintothefinishedproduct.Anagreementwasenteredintobetweenthepartiestodoso.CavalierwassoldtoSpartech,withSpartechtakingonthecontractandtheplaintiffpayinganadditional$20000.Spartechclaimedthatithadnotreceivedpaymentfortheyacht,andbecauseitdidn'thavecontractualrightsagainstMcKeownitassertedownershipoftheyacht.

32

o DefendantsarguedthatMcKeown'shullhadbecomeanaccessiontotheworkperformedbySpartecho McKeownwantsspecificrestitution

• Reasons:o Thejudgeholdsthattheyachtischattelthatwouldbeseriouslyaffectedifthe“accretions”addedbySpartechwere

removed.Toremovetheadditionswoulddestroythecurrentarticlesothelawofaccessionapplies.Thisistheinjuriousremovaltest.

o Thehullwasworth$1,700andtheaccretionsareworth$24,000.Whichisthemajorchatteltowhichaccretionswereadded(principalchattel)?Thejudgetakestheviewthatthehullwasaddedtopiecebypiece,andasthosepieceswereaddtheybecamethepropertyofthehullowner,McKeown.

o Spartechshouldhavetakentheprocessstepsoffindingoutwhotheyachtbelongedtoratherthanassumingitwastheirsandcompletingworkonit.Thehull,alongwiththeworkcompletedbySpartech,isthepropertyoftheplaintiff.

o Regardingthespecificrestitution,isthechattelsufficientlyuniquesothatdamagesarenotappropriate?Yes,theyachtshouldbereturnedtotheplaintiff.

o ShouldSpartechbecompensatedfortheimprovements?Theplaintiffwantedtheworkdone,butthoughtthathisyachttrade-inwassufficientpayment.Theplaintiffisorderedtopaythedifferencebetweenthetrade-invalueandthevalueoftheworkdonebySpartech$4,409.

• Ratio:o Ifminorchattelcanbedetached,thenitcanbeorderedtobereturned,oritcannotbereturnedandthen

compensationcanbeawarded.Ifminorchattelcannotbedetached,thencompensationcanbeawarded.o Thelawofaccession:

• Ifanycorporealsubstancereceivesanaccessionbynaturalorartificialmeans,asbythegrowthofvegetables,thepregnancyofanimals,theembroideryofcloth,theoriginalownerisentitledbyhisrightofpossessiontothepropertyinitsimprovedstate

• Similarly,whenthegoodsofonepersonareaffixedtothelandorchattel,forexampleaship,ofanother,theymaybecomepartofitandsoaccruetotheowneroftheprinciplething.

o Itisrelevantwhetheraninnocentthirdpartyhadaddedtosomeoneelse'schattelwithoutanyactualorconstructivenoticeofanother'sownershipandcaseswheretherewasnosuchknowledge

TestsforAccession(ThomasvRobinson)1. Injuriousremovaltest:cantheitemsberemovedwithoutseriousphysicalinjurytotheprinciplechattel?

i. E.g.Weldingmetalii. Ifthepartcanberemovedwithoutdamagingtheremainingprinciplechattelthentherewouldbenoaccessioneven

thoughtheremovedpartisofvitalfunctionalimportance(e.g.enginefromacar)2. Separateexistencetest:hastheseparateidentityoftheaccededchattelbeenlost?

i. E.g.abrickinahouse3. Destructionofutilitytest:wouldtheremovalofthecombineditemsdestroytheutilityoftheprincipalchattel?

i. E.g.acarisnotjustacollectionofparts,ifyouremovetheengineitnolongerfunctionsasacar4. Degreeandpurposeofannexationtest(fixturestest):lookingatthedegreeandpurposeofannexation,hasanaccession

occurred?Nosureguideastowhichapproachshouldgovern–theproperapproachmaydependonthenatureofthedispute

CommonLawRuleforAccession• Whenyoufusetwoitemsofpersonaltytothattheycannotbeconvenientlydetachedthereisaccession.Theprinciple

personaltybecomesthesubjectofallthepropertyrightsandtherightstotheaccessionarelost.Thereareonlyrightsinthedominantchattel

• Thecourtsdecidewhethergradualimprovementsofaccession,theessenceoftheimprovement,orthetotalvalueisusedasthetesttodeterminethis

• Damages(“liabilityrule”)orreturninspecie(“propertyrule”)o Recoveringpossessionisonlyavailableforland.Thisiswhywehavethedistinctionbetweenrealtyand

personalty.Returninspeciecouldonlybegrantedinacourtofequitywhentheitemisunique

StatutoryRuleforAccession• PersonalPropertySecurityAct:Evenminimalattachmentfallswithinthestatutorydefinitionofanaccession

33

JonesvDeMarchant(Allthree)Facts:Beaverpeltsmixedtogether(4ofhusbands&18ofwifes,)sewntogetherandturnedintoacoat.

A. Confusion:Mixingoftheplaintiff'speltswiththoseofherhusbandso Afterputtingallbeaverskinsinapile,cannottellwhosebeaverskinswerewhose.

B. Accession:Combinationofchattels:peltssewntogether.C. Alteration:Beaverpeltssewntogetherandthenalteredintoacoat,whichcouldnotbedivided

MISTAKENIMPROVEMENT

LawofPropertyAct,s69• Whenapersonatanytimehasmadelastingimprovementsonlandunderthebeliefthatthelandwastheperson'sown,

thepersonorperson'sassign:o Areentitledtoalienonthelandtotheextentoftheamountbywhichthevalueofthelandisenhancedbythe

improvement,oro AreentitledtoormayberequiredtoretainthelandiftheCourtisoftheopinionorrequiresthatthisshouldbe

donehavingregardtowhatisjustunderallcircumstancesofthecase• ThepersonentitledorrequiredtoretainthelandshallpaycompensationthattheCourtmaydirect• Normallyyou’reentitledtothemoneyyouspentimprovingtheland,butifthetruelandownerdoesn’tpayyouthenyou

canpotentiallyretaintheland

• Lien:arighttokeeppossessionofpropertybelongingtoanotherpersonuntiladebtowedbythatpersonisdischarged• Theimproverisstillatrespasser!Evenif,asthedoctrinerequires,theimprovermusthaveactedunderamistakenbeliefas

therighttobeontheland,itistritelawthataninnocenterroroffactisnodefencetoanactionintrespasstolandSOthelandownercancounterclaimfordamagesintortorseekoccupationrent

• Thisisdifferentthanthefixturestest!Itisarulethatexistsontopofthecommonlawruleoffixturesandtransformation

GidneyvShank(1995)• Feuersteinownedafreightercanoethatwasstolenfromhim,andeventuallypurchasedbyplaintiffGidneyfromathird

party.Gidneyrepaireditputting100hoursofhisownworkand$806intoreconstruction.Policelaterremovedthecanoefromhishouseaspartofacriminalinvestigation.Bothpartieslaidclaimtothecanoe

• Issue:claimforrestitutionasaremedyforunjustenrichment• Reasons:

o Forunjustenrichmenttheremustbe:§ Anenrichment§ Acorrespondingdeprivation§ Anabsenceofanyjuristicreasonfortheenrichment

o BeardJheldthattherewasajuristicreasonforenrichment(contrarytothetrialjudge)-thiswasthattherewasnorelationshipbetweenGidneyandFeuersteinandconsequentlyFeuersteindidn'tknowGidneywasinvestingtimeandmoneyintothecanoe,anddidn'tconsentoracquiescetotheinvestment.Thismeansthatitwasn'tunjust

• InGidney:o MakingcanoeusefulonwaterwasanincontrovertibleenrichmenttoFeuersteino Takingthecanoewasadeprivationtoplaintiffo BUT,sincenorelationbetweenGidneyandFeuersteinandnoknowledgeofplaintiff’sactions,thereWASajuristic

reasonforFeuersteintokeepenrichment.Feuersteinneverconsentedtoimprovements;nocommunication• Holding:AppealallowedforFeuerstein

34

Chapter4:TheConceptofPossession

• Notinterestedintrueownership.QuestionhereisalwaysregardingthepriorityofclaimElementsofPossession:thesearebothimportantbutdependingonthecontexttheymayberelaxed

1) Factum:physicalaspect2) Animus:intenttopossess

Physicalvs.LegalPossession

1) Physicalpossession–theword“possession”maymeaneffective,physicalormanualcontrol,oroccupation,evidencedbysomeoutwardact,sometimescalleddefactopossession(oroccupation).Thisisaquestionoffactratherthanlaw

2) Legalpossession–thatpossessionwhichisrecognizedandprotectedbylaw.a. Legalpossessionrequires:

i. Animuspossidendi(theintentiontopossess)andii. Factum(physicalcontrol).TheInterpretationofthese2componentscanvarysubstantially.

DeFactoPossession

• Legalpossessionisoftenassociatedwithdefactopossession,butlegalpossessionmayexistwithoutdefactopossession,anddefactopossessionisnotalwaysregardedaspossessioninlaw.

• Apersonwho,althoughhavingnodefactopossession,isdeemedtohavepossessioninlawissometimessaidtohaveconstructivepossession

ConstructivePossession

• Atypeoflegalfictioncreatedwheneitherthephysicalormentalaspectofpossession(animusandfactum)iswatereddown

Custody

• Oftencontrastedwithpossession.Apersonmayhavecustodyonlywithouthavinganypossessoryrights(ie.thecaseofacarlease–driverhascustodybutnotlegalpossession)

FirstPossession(sometimescalleddiscovery–fromPierson)

• Thepersonwhofirstoccupiesorpossessespropertyisentitledtomaintaintheirposition,atleastuntilsomeonewithabetterclaimemerged

• Allowsfortheperson’spossessiontoberespect,decreasespotentialconflict• Adversepossession–givesthepersoninpossessionabetterclaimthaneventhetitleholder

PiersonvPost• Facts:Postandhisdogshuntedandchasedafoxalongthebeach.Piersonwasawareofthehunt,andhekilledthefoxand

carrieditaway.Postclaimedalegalrighttopossessionoftheanimal• Issue:Doesapersonobtainpossessionofawildanimalbychasingit?• Reasons:

o Merelyfindingandchasingawildanimaldoesnotgiveapersonpossession.Evenmerelywoundingtheanimalwillnotgiverighttopossession

o Theanimalmustbecapturedorkilledinordertoconstitutepossessiono Needthecombinationofmanifestingintentcombinedwithanacttobringitunderyourcontrol

• Dissent:o Believesthisshouldbeanissueforsocialcustomoftherelevantcommunity–propertyiscontextualtoanextento Themajoritydoesn’tprovidetherightincentive–youcouldbedoingalltheworkofthehuntbutsomeonecould

depriveyouofwhatisrightfullyyourso Hisrule:Propertyinwildanimalsmaybeacquiredwithoutbodilytouchaslongasthepursueriswithinreachor

haveareasonableprospectoftaking,andanintentionofconvertingtohisownuse• Holding:Postdidn’testablishpropertyinthefox,sothereisnocauseofaction• Ratio:

o Merepursuitofananimaldoesnotgiveonealegalrighttoit.Needthecombinationofmanifestingyourintentcombinedwithanacttobringitunderyourcontrol

o Problemwiththiswayisthatwastedeffortsarecreated(noteconomicallyefficient)

35

Notes/Summary:

• Commonlawrule:needpossession–thisbecomestherootofownership(e.g.wildanimals)• Startingonthehuntdoesnotconferanyrightsonthehunter• Whenthehunterhasreasonableprospectsofcapturing–thedissentinPiersonwouldsaytherearepre-possessoryrights

andallotherhuntersmustbeprecludedfromhuntingthatanimal• Majorityrejectsthedissentandinsistsonanunequivocalact,suchastrappingormortallywoundingtosuchanextent

thattheanimalisdeprivedofitsnaturalliberty

PopovvHayashi(2002)• Facts:PopovandHayashiwereatabaseballgame.Theballlandedintheupperportionofthewebbingofthegloveworn

byPopov.Itisuncleariftheballwassecure.Hewaspushedtothegroundbythemobtryingtogettheballandsubsequentlylostpossessionoftheball.Hayashipickeditup.ItisunclearifhePopovwouldhaveretainedcontroloftheballhadthecrowdnotpushedhimdown.Popovpledcausesofactionsforconversion,trespasstochattel,injunctivereliefandconstructivetrust

• Issue:DidPopovachievepossessionortherighttopossessionasheattemptedtocatchtheball?• Reasons:

o Possessionrequiresbothphysicalcontrolovertheitemandanintenttocontrolitfromothers-disagreementhereabouthowthedefinitionshouldbeapplied(e.g.someactivitieslikehuntingallowforpossessiontoberecognizedevenbeforeabsolutedominionandcontrolisachieved)

o Rulesarecontextualandcraftedinresponsetotheuniquenatureoftheconducttheyseektoregulate.Areinfluencedbycustomandpracticeofeachindustry

o Popovestablishedthatapre-possessoryinterestgivesrisetoaqualifiedrightofpossession–thiscaseshowsanexceptiontotherulefromPierson

• Holding:• Ratio:

o Thiscaseallowsfortherecognitionofownershiprightsbasednotonpossession,butonpre-possessoryinterestslimitedtothesecircumstances(youareengagedinpursuitandunlawfulactsofothersinterruptyou,fromPierson)

§ Toestablishneedto:• Takesignificantbutnotcompleteactiontopossess• Effortsmustbeinterruptedbytheunlawfulactsofothers

o BUTevenifpre-possessoryinterestisestablished,itdoesn’tgiveyoualltherights–onlytherightstopursueanaction

o Thisistheonlyreferenceincaselawtoapre-possessoryinteresto Possessioniscontextual

CliftvKane• Facts:Shipswouldkillseals,putthemonshoreandthencontinuetohuntotherseals.Otherswouldcomeandtakethem

fromtheshore• Issue:Doweapplytheruleofpossession?• Majority:Ifyoukillananimalyourtitleisabsolute• Dissent:Favouredtheabandonmentissue–killingitisnotenough.Ifyoucan’trecovertheyarelosttoyouandreturnedto

commonstockNote:PropertyinWildAnimals

• Commonlawruleisthatwildanimalsaresubjecttolimitedpropertyrights–noabsolutepropertyrights,onlyqualified(unlesstheyareonesthatreturn)

• AlbertaWildlifeActs.1(3):showsthatpossessionisnotclarified–veryunclearprovision

FINDERS

General• Priortotheadventofsystemsoflandregistrationandrecording,possessionservedastheprimarybasisfordemonstrating

title.Priorpossessionstillservesastheprincipalmodeofprovingtitletopersonalproperty

36

o Thereisnogeneralregistryforpersonalproperty• Thesystemisnotaboutidentifyingabsoluteentitlement,butofpriorityofentitlement• ‘Afinderacquirestitlegoodagainsttheworld,exceptforthosewithacontinuingantecedentclaim(theyassert

possessorytitle)• Afinderisplacedinapositioninferiortothatofsubsistingpriorclaimants,butsuperiortothosearisingafterwards–timing

iscentral• Thetrueowner’srightshavenotbeenextinguished.Thefinderhaspossessorytitlebutthetrueownerhasownership

o Problematicnottoconfertitle–meansthatitwouldn’tbeawrongtotakeobjectsfromafinder,andthechainoftitleafterwouldbeprecarious

• Righttopropertymaybeupheldevenifpossessionwasn’tobtainedlawfully,butconnectiontocriminalitymaypreventthis(BirdvFortFrances,BairdvBritishColumbia)RightoffindersinTrachukandinBritishAirways:

o BritishAirwaysrule:Ifitisembedded,theoccupantwins.Ifitsnotembeddedbutdiscoveredthere,theoccupanthastomanifestintentiontocontrolforlostarticles

o Trachukrule:Whereapersonhaspossessionoflandswithamanifestintentiontoexercisecontroloveritandthethingswhichmaybefounduponitorinit,thenifsomethingisfoundonorundertheland,thepresumptionisthattheobjectisundercontroloftheoccupant

• Theserulesarenotconsistent–TrachukdoesnotmakethedistinctionbetweenwhetherthearticleisembeddedorsimplythereBUTthejusticeinthiscasespecificallymentionsintendingtoadoptBritishAirways

• CouldarguethattheruleinAlbertaisthattheoccupantmustmanifestintentionatalltimesregardlessofhowthepropertywasdiscovered.BUTcouldalsoarguethatGalantJintendedtofollowBritishAirwaysandgobythatinterpretation–notclearwhichisright

LegalRulesonFindersRightsandobligationsofthefinder(ParkervBritishAirwaysBoard)

1. Thefinderofachattelacquiresnorightsoveritunless(a)ithasbeenabandonedorlostand(b)hetakesitintohiscareandcontrol

2. Thefinderofachattelacquiresverylimitedrightsoveritifhetakesitintohiscareandcontrolwithdishonestintentorinthecourseoftrespassing

3. Afinderofachattel,whilenotacquiringabsoluteproperty,acquiresarighttokeepitagainstallbutthetrueownerorthoseinapositiontoclaimthroughthetrueowner,orsomeonewhocanassertapriorrighttokeepthechattelwhichwassubsistingatthetimewhenthefindertookitintohiscareandcontrol

4. Unlessotherwiseagreed,anyagentwhofindsachattelinthecourseofhisemploymentandnotwhollyincidentallytoitandtakeitintohiscontroldoessoonbehalfofhisemployer,whoacquiresafinder'srightstotheexclusionofthoseoftheactualfinder

5. Apersonhavingfinder'srightshasanobligationtotakesuchmeasuresasinallthecircumstancesarereasonabletoacquaintthetrueownerofthefindingandpresentwhereaboutsofthechattelandtocareforitinthemeantime

Rightsandliabilitiesofanoccupier

1. Anoccupieroflandhassuperiorrightstothoseofafinderoverchattelsinorattachedtothatland,andanoccupierofabuildinghassimilarrightsinrespectofchattelsattachedtothebuilding,whetherineithercasetheoccupierisawareofthepresenceofthechatteli. Iftheobjectisembeddedorattachedtothepremises,theoccupantalwayswinsii. Distinctionmadebetweenembeddedchattelsandthosesimplyfoundontheland

2. Anoccupierofabuildinghasrightssuperiortothoseofafinderoverchattelsuponorin,butnotattachedtothatbuildingonlyifbeforethechattelisfound,hehasmanifestedanintentiontoexercisecontroloverthebuildingandthethingsthatmightbefoundonit

3. Anoccupierwhomanifestsanintentiontoexercisecontroloverabuildingandthethingsuponorinitsoastoacquirerightssuperiortothoseofafinderisunderanobligationtotakesuchmeasuresasinallthecircumstancesarereasonabletoensurethatlostchattelsarefound,andtoacquaintthetrueownerofthefindingandtocareforthechattelsinthemeantime

4. Anoccupierofachattel(e.g.ship,car,plane)istobetreatedasifheweretheoccupierofthebuilding

ArmoryvDelamirie• Facts:Chimneysweepfindsajewelandbringstoashopforappraisal.Theapprenticetakesitandremovestheprecious

stones.Theytellhimthatitisn'tworthanything,andwhenherejectstheoffer,thedefendantrefusesitreturnitwiththestonesattached.Theplaintiffsuedhimintrover(actionforthereturnofpersonalproperty)

37

• Issue:Doesthefinderhavepossessoryrights?• Reasons:

o Jewellersaysthatthesweepisjustafinder,nottheownerofthering,socan'tsueonthebasisofpossessionorownership

o BUTthecommonlawisnotinterestinwhoownswhat,ratherinterestintherelativemeritoftheclaims• Holding:Chimneysweep'sclaimissuperior• Ratio:Thefinderhasabetterclaimtotheobjectthananyoneelseintheworldexceptforthetrueowner

KeronvCashman• DiscussedinPopov,usedtodemonstrateequitablesharing(butitdoesn'thaveanythingtodowiththis)• 5boyscominghomefromschoolandtheyfindanoldstockingfilledwithsomething.Theyhititeachotherwithit.Itisfullof

cash• Thecashissplitbetweenalloftheboys• Thisisn'tactuallyaboutequitablesharing-whenthefirstboyfoundthestockingheestablishedthefactum(physicalcontrol)

butnottheintention(mentalelement)topossessitscontents.Whenitburstopeneverybodyhadtheintentiontopossess,butitwasnotundertheexclusivecontrolofanyoneboy-theyallhadequalfactualcontrolatthatpoint.Possessionwasestablishedatthatmoment,theywerealljointfinders

BirdvFortFrances• Boyandhisfriendsplayhideandseek.Underthehousehefindsanoldcanthatisfilledwithcash.Policetakethemoneyand

theboysues,soit’stheboyagainstthepolice• Policesaytheboyhadnopermissiontoclimbundertheprivateproperty,soheisatrespasser(ownerofthepoolhallwhere

itwasfounddidnotbringforwardaclaim)• Boywinsoverthepolice-eventhoughhewasatrespasserdidnotaffecthisclaim• Ratio:Possessionisentitledtothesamelegalprotectionwhetherornotithasbeenobtainedlawfullyorbytheftorother

unlawfulmeans

BairdvBritishColumbia• Bairdadmittedtocertainthingsatthepolicestationbutwasneverchargedwithanything.Hewasthedriverofagetawaycar

inanarmedrobberyinOntario.ChecksintoahotelinVancouverandputshisvaluableinthehotelsafe.Policearealertedandtakethemoney,andBairdisneverchargedbutisnotallowedhiscashbacksohesues

• StatutesinCanadathatallowauthoritiestoseizetheproceedsofcrime-butthisisn'trelevantherebecausehewasn'tcharged

• CourtsaysthatBaird'sconductwassotaintedbycriminalitythattheywon'tassisthimwithhisclaimo "Fromwrongdoingthereshallbenoright"

• FindersrightscanbedisallowedbecauseofanindividualsconnectiontocriminalityOccupierversusfinder:whoprevails?

ParkervBritishAirways• Facts:ParkerwaitinginBA’sloungeatHeathrow–findsbracelet–nooneclaimssohedoes• Shoulditgotothefinderorowneroftheland?Notembeddedhere• Court:GoestoParker,BAhadnoanimuspossidendiandlackedphysicalcontrol.

o TEST:Whennotattachedorembedded,anoccupiermusthaveanintentiontoexercisecontroloverpremisesandpossesseverythinginit

§ NoevidenceBAsearchedforordemandedlostobjects§ Notevenregularcleaningormaintenanceisenoughtogiveyouclaimoverthefinder

o Ifhadbeenfoundbyemployee–BAwouldpossesso Mentionthatiftrespassing,landownerispreferredevenifshownomanifestintenttocontrol

TrachukvOlinek• Facts:Trachukandthefourdefendants,Olinek,Fulkerth,AustinandMuntzeachclaimtherighttopossessionofandtitleto

$75,960whichwasuncoveredbyhefourdefendantsfromunderthesurfaceofaquartersectionoffarmland.Atthetimethemoneywasfoundhewasnottheowneroftheproperty,hewasalesseefromanoralagreementwiththelandowner.

o Defendant’sclaim:onthebasisofbeingthefindersofthemoneyandfortunefindersoflostpropertyareentitledtoitagainstalltheworldexcepttherealowner

38

o Trachuk’sclaim:baseshisclaimonbeinganoccupierofthepropertyandbeinginpossessionofthemoneybyvirtueofbeingindefactopossessionofthelandswhichcontainedthemoney

• Reasons:o Olinekwaslawfullyonthepremises,tookpossessionofmoney;Trachuklosesbecausehecouldnotshow:dejure

(legaltitle)righttothelandwheremoneyfound,defacto(actual)possessionofthelandsincethefencewasn'tmeanttoexcludeothersfromthearea.

o Becausethemoneyhadbeendeliberatelyhiddenunderprivatelyownedland,thegeneralrule,thatthefinderoflostpropertyisentitledtoitasagainstalltheworldexcepttherealowner,doesnotapply

• Holding:Infavourofthedefendants.TheirpossessorytitlewassuperiortoTrachuk’s• Ratio:Whereapersonhaspossessionofahouseorland,withamanifestintentiontoexercisecontroloverit,then,if

somethingisfoundonorunderthelandthepresumptionisthatthepossessionofthatthingisintheownerofthelocationinquestion

ABANDONMENT

• Anexpressintentiontoabandon,coupledwithanoccupationbyanewcomerisrequiredbeforeabandonmentiscomplete,OR

• Anownerorpossessorofchattelcaneasilydivestthemselvesofownershipbyabandoningchattelwiththeintentionofsurrenderingownership(divestingabandonment)

o Thisonlyrequirestherequisiteintentionandconductbytheownermanifestingrequisiteintent• Theactofabandonmentisaquestionoffacttobeprovenbythepartyrelyingontheprincipleofabandonment• Canusethefollowingfactorstosupportaninferenceoftheintenttoabandon:

o Passageoftimeo Natureofthetransactiono Natureandvalueoftheproperty

• ThisisDIFFERENTfrommisplacinganitem–losingallhopeofrecoveryisnotequivalenttotheanimusofabandonment

HistoricalResourcesAct,s32(1)PropertyinallarchaeologicalresourcesandpaleontologicalresourceswithinAlbertaisvestedintheCrown

TheJusTertiiDefenceIndisputesoverproperty,thelawisconcernedwithascertainingtherelativerightsofthepartiestothecontest.Thismeansthatabetterclaimresidinginsomethirdperson(justertii)isimmaterial

ADVERSEPOSSESSION

• Doctrineofadversepossession:Ifyouexhibitpossessionofthecorrectnatureandoftherequiredduration,yourrightsaregoodnotonlyagainsttheworldbutalsoagainstthetitleholder(protectsLASToccupancy)

o Thisisadefencetoanactiontorecoverpossessionbythetitleholder,andisaboutbalancingtherightsofthetwoparties

o Governedbycommonlawandstatute§ Requirementsofpossessiontestsaredevelopedincaselaw,buttheprocedureandtimelimitsare

definedbystatute(LimitationActandLandTitlesAct)• POSSESSION:personassertingsquatter’srightsmusthaverequiresfactualcontrol(factum)andintentiontopossess

(animus)• ClissoldvPerry:GovernmentexpropriatedlandfromClissold.ItisdiscoveredthatClissoldisnottheowneroftheland.If

thetruetitleholdercame,hewouldhaveprevailedoverClissold.Crownsaidhehasn'testablishedpossession,sohewouldn'tgetanything.Courtssaythathehasestablishedpossessorytitlewhichisgoodagainsttheworld,sotheystillhavetopayhim

o Applicationofrelativityoftitle-hedoesn'thavethebesttitle,buthehastitlegoodagainstthegovernmentsothegov'tstillhastopayhim

• Timelimits:

o InAlbertatheLimitationsActstatesthatifthetitleholderdoesnotseekaremedialorderforrecoveryofpossession10yearsafterbeingdispossessed,thenthepersoninpossessionofthelandattheexpirationoftheclockisentitledtoimmunityfromliabilitytothetitleholderuponpleadingthedefence

39

o YouHAVEtopleadito Selfhelpbypeacefulmeansbythetitleholderisineffectiveafter10years(section3(6))o Effectivelyafter10years,eventhoughtheActdoesn'tsayyouaren'tthetitleholder,thistitleisworthlesso BUTtheycangetafreshcertificate

• QualityofPossession:needall5orelsenorightscanbeasserted

5elementsfromKeefervArillotao Openandnotorious:theclockwillnotrununlessthesquatter'spossessionisdiscoverablebythetrueowner

(objective).Theclockwillbegintoruniftheownerisalertedtoadversepossession.Thismeansthattheclockwillbegintorunagainstthetitleholderiftheyknew,orshouldhaveknown

o Continuous:Ifpossessionisinterrupted,theclockisrestarted-thisalsodependsoncircumstances-continuousdoesn'thavetomean24/7

o Actual:thepersoninadversepossessionmustphysicallyoccupythelandandareentitledonlytothepartofthelandthattheyoccupy

o Adverse:thesquattermustnotbeonthelandwiththetitleowner'spermissionoracknowledgingthebettertitleoftheowner

§ Althoughsomecaseswhereapersonisgrantedpermissiontoaccesslandunderaneasement,thenoveruseandabusethateasementbyfencing,stakingapermanentclaim,etc.,sotheeasementcanmatureintoanadversepossessionclaim

o Exclusive:thesquatter'spossessionmustbeexclusive.Considerstheactionsofthetrueowner-ifthetitleholderdemonstratesevenminoractsofdominionovertheproperty,thenthepersoninadversepossessioncan'tbesaidtohaveestablishedexclusivity

• Inconsistentusetest:thistestisnotpartoftheregularseriesoftest.ItwasaddedatonetimeinEnglandwhenajuristsaid

thatapersoninadversepossessionmustalsodemonstratethattheiruseofthepropertyinquestionwasinconsistentwiththeintendedusebythetitleholder

o BUTthisisveryincompatiblewiththenotionofpossessorytitleSOthistestisNOTPARTofthelawinAlbertaalmostentirely

o NelsonvMowatheldthattherequirementofinconsistentusetestwasrejectedinAlberta.In2018acasesaidthattheAlbertaCourtofAppealrejectedthistest

StatutoryRequirementsforAdversePossession• InAlbertaadversepossessionisadefencetoaclaimbythetitleholder.Entitledtoimmunitybecause10yearshave

elapsed(forland)

LimitationsAct:o Section2(a):ifaclaimantdoesnotseekaremedialorderwithin2yearsafterthedatetheclaimantshouldhave

knownoroughttohaveknownalltheelementsthatallowaclaimanttobringforwardaclaim§ E.g.clockbeginstorunwhenyoufindout§ Notimportantforclaimsofpossession

o Section2(b):10yearsaftertheclaimarose,thedefendantonpleadingtheActasadefenceisentitledtoimmunityfromliabilityinrespectoftheclaim

§ Thisisforland,notpersonalty!o Section3(4):thelimitationperiodinsubsection(1)(a)doesnotapplywhereaclaimantseeksaremedialorderfor

therecoveryofpossessiono Subsection(3)(3)(f):aclaimforaremedialorderfortherecoveryofpossessionofrealpropertyariseswhenthe

claimantisdispossessedoftherealpropertyo Section3(6):afterthe10yearperiodthelimitationsperiodhaselapsed.Afterthisperiodtheycannotgain

possessionbyself-help.Enteringthepremisesisofnoconsequenceafterthisperiod.ThereisNOTHINGthatthetitleholdercando

§ Ifyou'rethetitleholder,if10yearstheonlythingyoucandoisselltheland(section3(6)showsthatselfhelpcan'thelpgainpossession)-shouldjusttakeactionpriortothis

Takeaway:

• Limitationperiodistwoyearsfromtimeofactualorconstructivedeliveryforchattels• Limitationperiodis10yearsaftertheclaimaroseforland• Assoonasthetitleownerisdispossessedtheclockstartsrunning• Adversepossessionessentiallymeansthatafter10yearsyourtitleisextinguished

40

• Ifsquatteracknowledges,inwriting,thetrueowner’stitletotherealpropertypriortothe10-yearexpirylimitation,squatterlosesitsAPclaim

o InCL,anyacknowledgement(writingororal)willdefeatanadversepossessionclaim• LimitationissuspendedforanytimethatthedefendantfraudulentlyconcealstheAPclaim• Atcommonlaw:Ifyouconcealthefactthatyouareactingastheowner,theclockrestarts

LandTitlesAct,s74 o (1)Whenthe10yearperiodhaselapsedandyouaresuedandgetjudgmentinyourfavour,orarenotsuedbut

arebringingaclaimtoshowyouareinadversepossession,onceyougetconfirmationfromthecourtofyourentitlementtopossessionyoucannowgototheregistrar'sofficetoshowyoucanstay,andtheywillissueyouanewcertificateoftitleinyourname-youbecomethetitleholder

• EffectofLandTitlesAct:Oncethetitleholderisdispossessedtheclockbeginstorun.Ifthereisonetrespasseroraseriesoftrespassersforaseriesoftime,thepersonwhoiscurrentlyinpossessionistheonewhothenholdstheland

o Multiplepeoplecanconstitutecontinuousadversepossessiono Onlytheregisteredclaimsarebindinglegally,andtrespassersclaimsaren'tregisteredontitle

§ Adversepossessionclaimsarenotincludedinthetitle-e.g.ifapersonbuyslandtheycanseetheeasements,etc.butcan'tseethatadversepossessionhasbeenhappeningfor5yearsalready.Whentheypurchasethelandtheygetafreshstartandtheclockstartsoveragain

§ Cannotfileacaveatonthelandforadversepossessionclaimo Aseriesofsquatterscanbeonthelandandestablishadversepossession.Butifduringtheperiodthelandissold

toanewbuyer,thisrestartstheclock• NEEDTOFILEFORTITLEifyouarepossessinglandadverselyafter10years,otherwiseyouarevulnerabletoresale• Rememberthatifyoubuylandyouarealwaysencumberedbyagreements/titlewiththeland• Abolishingadversepossession-itwouldallowfactsonthegroundtotrumpsurveyboundariesthatwereestablishedalong

timeago,importantinthefaceofclimatechange,erosionofland,etc.o ThisisprobablyhappeninginAlbertasoon

MunicipalGovernmentActs609Can'tclaimadversepossessionofcrownormunicipalland

PublicLandsActs4Can'tclaimadversepossessionofcrownormunicipalland

Takeaway#2

• Apersonclaimingadversetitlemustfirsthavepossessorytitle.Havetodothiswithoutsecrecy,withoutpermission,andpeacefully.Thattypeofpossessorytitleisgoodagainsttheworldexceptsomeonewithabettertitle.Someonewhowasthereearlier,ormaybethetitleholder.Thepersonwithpossessorytitlecandefeateventhepersonwiththetitleholder(normallytitleisbetterthanpossession).

• InconsistentusetestnotpartofAlbertadoctrine• Atcommonlawitisestablishedthatapersonacquiringalegalinterestinlandisboundbyallpre-existinglegalinterests

affectingthatland.Thefactthatthesecondinterestwaspurchasedwithoutknowledgeofthepriorentitlementisofnoconsequence.Thesecondlegaltitleholderisbound(firstintimeisfirstinright)

KeefervArillota• Facts:Keefershadaright-of-wayacrossCloy’sland.Keeferbuiltagarageattheendoftheright-of-wayandusedagrassy

area.Cloysstillusedthedrivewayandthegrassysectionoccasionally.Cloydidn’tobjectwhenKeefermovedthegaragefromtherearofhispropertytotherearofthestrip.Cloyoftenusedthedrivewayfortheirtenants,customers,ordeliverytrucks.KeeferhadeasementofgravelstripthatranbetweenbuildingownedbyKeeferandsubsequentlybytheArillottas.Itwasintheirdeed,nonpossessoryright;KeeferusedthegrassyareawithnoobjectionfromCloys,alsothepredecessorstotheArillottas.CloysspentmostoftheyearinFlorida,especiallyinthewinter.

• Issue:Didtherespondents'possessionchallengetherightofthelegalownertomaketheuseofthepropertyhewantedtomakeofit?

• Reasons:o Keefer’sdidn’tinterfereinanywayhowthelandwastobeusedbyowners.o Cloysneverparkedtheircarortruckonthestripofland;theyneverintendedorwantedtousethestripfor

parking

41

o Apersonclaimingpossessorytitlemustestablish(1)actualpossessionfortheperiod(2)thatsuchpossessionwaswiththeintentionofexcludingfrompossessiontheownerand(3)discontinuanceofpossessionfortheperiodbytheownerentitledtopossession

o Apossessorytitlecannotbeacquiredagainstapersonbydeprivingthemoftheusesoftheirpropertythattheyneverintendedorintendedtomakeofit.The"animuspossidendi"(&thetest)whichapersonclaimingapossessorytitlemusthaveisanintentiontoexcludetheownerfromsuchusesastheownerwantstomakeofhisproperty

o Therespondentsfailin(2)and(3)-theKeefer’sneverintendedtoousttheCloyso ConstructivepossessionoftheownerswasdisplacedbytheactualpossessionoftheKeefer’s,butasfarasthe

balanceofthestrip,theownersmadeasmuchuseastheywanted.Itstripwasusedtoaccesstheapartment.Cloysdidn’tusethefullwidthofthestripbutconstructivepossessionofthewholepropertyisnotoustedsimplybecauseheisnotinactualpossessionofthewhole

• Holding:Appealallowed.Respondentswereentitledtoadeclarationthattheappellants’titlehasbeenextinguishedonlywithrespecttothatpartofthelandoccupiedbytherespondent’sgarage

• Ratio:PossessionofpartispossessionofthewholeifthepossessoristhelegalownerTeisvAncaster(Town)(1997)

• Facts:TheTeisclaimedpossessorytitletotwostripsofland-the"ploughedstrip"andthe"laneway"locatedontheedgeofapublicparkownedbythetown,mainlyusedtoplaybaseball.Forover10yearsboththeTeisandtheTownmistakenlybelievedthattheTeisownedthesestripsofland.

• Issue:Doesapersonclaimingpossessorytitlehavetoshowinconsistentusewhenboththeclaimantandthepapertitleholdermistakenlybelievethattheclaimantownsthelandindispute?

• Ratio:Inconsistentusetestdoesn’tapplywhenthereismutualmistake

ADVERSEPOSSESSIONOFCHATTELSAdispossessesO(owner)–AtransferschatteltoB–BtransferstoC–OdemandsfromC

• LimitationsAct:doesNOTextinguishTITLEattheendoftheperiod(2yearsinAlberta),itonlyextinguishesACTIONSo Testsofopen/notoriousnotapplicabletopersonaltyb/cifyouweredeprivedofthisanditschangedhands,how

wouldyouknowthatsomeoneisopenlyandnotoriouslywearingyourpossession?• Becausethereisnoexpressprovisionfortheextinguishmentoftitleattheendoftheperiod,thechancetobringanaction

isneverlostbecausethetitleownercanalwaysbringanewactionagainstthenewpossessor

BarbareevBilo(1991)• Facts:B1ownedamotorcycle.In1985A(B1'sestrangedspouse)tookthebike.Thetwoyearlimitationperiodgoverning

actionsbetweenB1andAexpiredin1987.In1990AsoldthebiketoB2.B1thensuedforitsreturn• ItwasheldthattheactionwastenablebecauseoncethepropertywaspassedtoB2,thelimitationforanactionagainsthim

beginstorunanewsincehehascommittedafreshconversion(eventhoughthetwo-yearlimitationperiodinwhichanactivitycouldbelaunchedagainstAhadexpired)

• LimitationsperiodhasexpiredbutthecourtsaysthatthewifeisstilltheownerandthereforewhenBilorefusestogiveitback,thisisafreshactofconversionbyBilo

• Nowthewifehasafreshlimitationperiodtopursueactionagainsthim.Oncesheseeksherremedialorderhemustgivethemotorcyclebacktoher

• LimitationsActdoesnotEXTINGUISHtitleattheendoftheperiod,itonlyextinguishesactions-sheisbarredfrombringingaclaimagainstherhusband,butnotbarredfrombringingaclaimagainstBilo

• Ratio:o Heretheeffectofrunningtheperioddidnotextinguishtheoriginalowner'stitleo ClockneverendsinAlberta

O’KeeffevSnyder(1980)• Facts:Throughouta30yearperiodthewhereaboutsofherpaintinghadbeenunknowntotheplaintiff• Issue:couldanactionbebroughtin1976torecoverapaintingthathadbeenstolenin1946?• Itwasheldthatthelimitationperiodshouldcommencetorunonlywhenthecauseofaction,includingthepartyagainst

whompossessionissought,waspropertydiscoverable(evenifnotdiscovered)bytheplaintiff.Theperiodisnotinterruptedbyatransferofthepropertybyonewrongfulpossessortoanother

42

• Holding:Courtholdsthatifanartistdiligentlyseekstherecoveryoflostorstolenartbutcan'tdiscoverthelocationandidentityofthethiefofpossessor,thenthestatuteoflimitationsdoesn’tbegintorun

o Withpersonalty,thefocusisontheconductoftheowner!Versusonlandthefocusisonconductofthepersoninadversepossession

• Heretheeffectofrunningtheperiodmeantthatthetitleoftheoriginalownernolongerexists• Ratio:

• Discoveryrule:clockrunsagainstO’Keefeonlywhenshefirstkneworreasonablyshouldhaveknownusingduediligence,thecauseofaction,includingtheidentityofthepersoninpossession.

o Shiftstheburdentothetrueownertoshowtheyhavetriedtolocatetheirstolenpropertyandsubsequentlytriedtorecoverit

o ThiefcanacquiretitleintimeTakeaway

• Thiefhaspossessorytitletogive,notgoodtitle.Thisiswhatthebuyerwouldacquire.NewJerseygoeswiththediscoveryrule(couldtheyhavediscoveredtheidentityofthepersonandlocation),whereBilosaysthatonceyoumakeafreshdemandandthepersonrefuses,theclockresets

• EssentiallynoadversepossessionofpersonaltyinAlbertao Noprovisionbarringthepersonwithtitlefromselfhelpwithpersonalty,unlikeforland

• BecauseweonlyhaveonelawonthisAlberta,itisn'tcompletelysettled

GIFTS

• Gift:atransferofpropertywithoutconsiderationo Agiftislegallydistinctfrom:

§ Acontractualpromise(isenforceable)§ Apromisetogiveagift(notenforceable)

o Itmaybemadeofanyinterestinrealorpersonalproperty,includingintangibles• Giftsbymode:

1. Intervivos:agiftduringone’slife2. Testamentarygifts(legaciesanddevises)

a. Adeviseisagrantoflandbywillb. Legacy/bequestisagiftofpersonaltybywill

3. Mortiscausa:giftsincontemplationofdeath

INTERVIVOSGIFTSPerfectingagiftofpersonalpropertyintervivosrequires:

1) Donativeintent2) Delivery3) Acceptance(relaxed)

Otherwaystogive:1. Bydeedofgift

a. E.g.ifarelativewantstotransfermoneyintoyouraccount,thebankmightwanttoknowthisisagiftandrequiredocumentation.Thisdeedshowsthis,itissigned,sealed,anddeliveredtoshowthatitisagiftandthedonorwon'twantitback

2. Bydeclarationoftrusta. Apersonhastitleinthecourtofthelaw,butsomeoneelseisactuallythebeneficiaryofthetitle.Onepersoncanhold

thepropertyinnameonly,butthebeneficialtitlebelongstosomeoneelse.Needtosignadeclarationoftrusttoshowthis

NolanvNolan&Anor(2003)• Facts:CaseconcernstheownershipofthreepaintingsbytheartistSidneyNolan.Theplaintiffwashisdaughterbyadoption

andclaimedthatSidneyhadmadeagiftofthepaintingstohermother,CynthiaNolan,beforeherdeath.FollowingCynthia'sdeaththethreepaintingsessentiallyremainedinSidney'spossessionuntilhisdeath.Theplaintiffallegedproofof

43

theclaimthatagifthadbeenmadetohermotherlargelybasedondocumentsfromexhibitionsthathadrecentlycometolight

• Issue:DidSidneyNolangiveCynthiaNolanthepaintingsasagift?• Reasons:

o Intentiontomakeagift:§ Donativeintentionischaracteristicallyaccompaniedbywordsofgiftwhichevincetheintentionand

delineatetheobjectandextentoftheintendedbenefaction• Wordsofgiftareusuallynecessarytoachievethatcertaininrelationtomatterssuchasdefining

theextentofthebenefitthedonorintendstoconfer§ BUTdonativeintentdoesn'tneedtobemanifestedbywordsofgift-unusualcircumstancesmaybe

imaginedwhereothermeansfulfilthosefunctions(onusisthenonthewould-bedonee)§ Atanystageuntildeliveryoccurs,thedonorcanvalidlyretractthegift§ Apromisetomakeagift,oranexpressionofgiftbywordsoffutureintention(howeverclearand

unqualified)isnotsufficienttoestablishaperfectgift§ Theelementofdeliveryneedstobesatisfiedinordertogivecompleteeffecttothedonativeintention§ Needtobecautiouswhendeterminingclaimsmadeagainsttheestateofadeceasedperson

o Delivery§ Deliveryisthelegalactessentialtocompletethegift.Transferspossessionandownershiptothedonee§ Avaliddeliverymarkstheterminationofthedonor'sdominion-continuationofcontrolorpowerinthe

donorisinconsistentwithavaliddeliveryandthusinconsistentwithaperfectgift(needtorelinquishallcontrol!)

§ Deliverycanbeactual(manualorphysicaltransferofgoods)orconstructive(cantakevariousformswherethenatureorbulkofthegoodsrendersmanualdeliveryimpossibleorimpractical)

§ Deliverycanprecedemanifestationofintent;confluencerequired• Wheredeliverytakesplacesubsequently,itisnecessarytoestablishthatthepreviously

expresseddonativeintentisstillpresentwhendeliveryoccurred.Alsonecessarytoestablishthatthechattelswerealreadyinpossessionofthepurporteddoneeatthetimewhenthewordsofgiftwereexpressedordonativeintentwasmademanifest

§ Wherethechattelthesubjectmatterofaparolgiftisalreadyinpossessionofthedoneeatthetimethegiftwasmade,afurtherdeliveryorachangeofpossessionisunnecessary

o Deliveryincommonestablishments§ E.g.inReColewherethehusbandtakeshisnewwifetotheirnewhouseandsayseverythinginitishers,

butsincetheyliveinthesameplacethereisnodeliveryorchangeinpossession• Inthiscasetheyshouldgetadeedofgifttoshowthetransfer• Needsomethingmore• Possessionisequivocal

§ Wordsaren’tgenerallysufficienttoperfectagift–inordinarycircumstancesbothwordsanddeliveryarerequired

• Here,relaxingthevisibleactwouldbe“dangerous”,leavingonlytheoralrequirement

AlbertaEvidenceAct,s.11• Section11holdsthatyoucan’trelyonyourownevidencetoprovedonativeintent• Needcorroborationbecauseifthedonorisdeceasedyourowninformationisinsufficient• Thisevidencemustbematerial!E.g.takeapicture

DONATIOMORTISCAUSA

• Donatiomortiscausaisagiftincontemplationofdeatho Thisissomethingthecommonlawrecognizeswhentheownerofapropertyisingreatperilandfacingimminent

death,anddoesn’thavethetimeorpossibilityofmakingavalidwill• Basicelements:

o Impendingdeathfromanexistingperil;o Delivery;ando Giftisonlytotakeeffectuponthedeathofthedonor

• Hastobesomeformofdelivery,butdeliveryiscontextual–somethingsaren’tpossibletobedoneinthecircumstances

44

ReBayoffEstate• Facts:BayoffhadpreparedavalidwillinSeptember,1997.Onhisdeathbed,hemadeMs.Simardtheexecutrixofhiswill.

BayoffgavehissafetydepositboxkeytoSimardandsaid“everythingthereisyours”.Bayoffaskedhertocleanoutthisboxandsignedanauthorizationform.However,thebankrefusedheraccessabsentfurtherdocumentation.Beforeshewasabletoobtainsuchdocumentation,Bayoffhadpassedaway.Giventhatshewastheexecutrix,shesubsequentlyreceivedthecontentsofthebox

• Issue:DidBayoffmakeadonatiomortiscausa(giftincontemplationofdeath)?• Reasons:

o Inthiscaseitisnotaconditionalgift,soprobablyisn’tvalidbecauseofthetimedelayo Thisisn’tanintervivosgiftbecausethedeliverywasnotgoodenoughforthis(wouldhaverequiredfillingoutthe

bankforms),althoughdeliveryWASgoodenoughfordonationmortiscausao BUTthereisanexceptionundertheruleinStrongvBird,if:

§ Thedonorintendsanintervivosgift;and§ Thatintentioncontinueduntilafterdeath;and§ Thegiftisundelivered;and§ Thedoneetakeslegaltitletothedonor’sestateasthenamedexecutor(oradministrator)§ THENthedoneecanperfectthegift

• Holding:TheoralgiftwasvalidRelaxingthedeliveryrequirement:

Constructivedelivery• Changeincapacityofpossession• Deliveryofmeansofaccessandcontrollikelysufficientif:

o Donordoesnotretainaccessorcontrolando Actualdeliveryisimpractical

• Basicallytryingtomakeagiftofsomethingincircumstanceswheredeliveryisnotpracticalorfeasibleo E.g.isdeliveryofkeyssufficient?Whatelsecouldthedonorhavedonetodeliver?Isthistheonlysetofkeys,is

thereanyresidualcontrolovertheasset?

Symbolicdelivery• Probablyinsufficienttomakeagift

CHAPTER4:DOCTRINEOFESTATES

INTRODUCTIONANDGENERALNOTES- Anestateconfersasegmentofownershipasmeasuredbytime- “ANESTATEINTHELANDISATIMEINTHELAND,ORLANDFORATIME,WHICHARENOMORETHANDIVERSITIESOFTIME”

o Feesimpleisthegreatest,signifieslandforperpetuityx. Whycreateestatesinland?Thelawofestatesistheproductofthetensionbetweenautonomyandutility.

- Autonomy(deadhandcontrol):wantestatetopasstowidowandthentothechildren- Utility:torealizetheeconomicpotential,promotetrade,andencouragestewardshipoftheland(EllicksonfromReader)

o Promotetrade:usingthetimeaxis,wecancarveuptheestateandsellittothosewhovalueitmore.o Avoidoverexploitationoftheland

CreationofEstates–2Methods

- Byoperationoflaw(e.g.TheDowerAct).- Orbyaninstrument(adeviseoragrantintervivos)

o ThetypeofestatecreatedisafunctionofthelanguageusedCommonLawEstatesinCanada(+Copyholdestate)1. Freeholdestates:feesimple,lifeestate,feetail–ownedbyafreeholder,whohasliability/tenurialobligationstothecrown.

a. Recoursetothecommonlawcourtstoreinforcetheirpossession.

45

b. Seisin–thepersonwhoisseizedofanestateisthepersonwhoisliableforthefeudalservicesandfeudalincidents.Noabeyanceofseisinisallowed(todaynolongerneeddeliveryofseisin)

c. Commonlawrightsinland2. Leasehold

a. Voluntaryarrangementbetweenalandlordandatenant.b. Thatleaseisnotmerelyapersonright;itisanestateinlandthatcanbetransferred,andalltherulesofpropertyapply

tothatestate.c. Personwhohasaninterestisnotafreeholder,theyholdofthelandlord

3. CopyholdEstatea. NeverinCanada

Freeholdestates1. Feesimple2. Lifeestate–lifetenant3. Feetail(allbutextinct,abolishedinAlberta)EstateinFeeTail

- FeeTailhasbeenabolishedinAlberta(LawofPropertyAct,s9)-anyattempttocreateafeetailwillcreateafeesimple.- Purpose:tokeeppropertyinthefamily(“ToAandtheheirsofhisbody”etc…)- Policyforabolishing

Problemsoffeetail

- BarringtheTail:aprocessbywhichthecourtwouldenlargethefeetailandmakeitafeesimplebecausetheygiveanestateoflimitedvalue

- StrictSettlement:Maleheirgetsalifeestateinsteadsohedoesn’tsquandertheestateESTATEINFEESIMPLEAnestateofpotentiallyinfiniteduration.Theestatepassestoanylivingbloodrelative(ifintestate)orasdevisedinawill.Ifneitherexists,propertyrevertsbacktotheCrownviaescheat-UltimateHeirsAct.

o Ifapersonintheprovincediesandhasnoheirs,itwillreverttotheprovincialcrownviatheUnclaimedPersonalPropertyandVestedPropertyActs15(e).

o Canbedividedintosmallerestateso Isfullyalienable–StatuteQuiaEmptoresandStatuteofWills

o PriortoSQE,hadtoreceivepermissionfromsuperiors.After,tenantscouldbuyandsellinterestsandestates.o StatuteofWillsaffirmsthatlandownerscandesignatewhoevertheychooseastheirrightfulheir

Devise=passestheestateindeathGrant=intervivos(duringhislifetime)Remainder=upondeathoflifetenant,possessionoffeesimplegoestotheownerofremainder

- OnlyendswhentherearenolegalheirsCREATIONATCOMMONLAW

“MAGICWORDS”–requiredtograntfeesimpleintervivosatcommonlaw–needthesewordstocreateafeesimple:“ToAandher(orhis)heirs”.“ToA”denoteswhoitgoesto,and“andher(orhis)heirs”denotesthenatureoftheestategiven,namelyfeesimple.

- WordsofPurchase:“ToA”describesrecipientoftheproperty- WordsofLimitation:“andherheirs”denotesthedurationofthestategranted

o Heirshavenorights/entitlements,butmereexpectancy(spessuccessions)o Lineofheirsisjustabasisofmeasurement

- Ex:“ToAinfeesimple”–ifintervivos,wouldbealifeestateo Note,ifinawillàfeesimple(Forpolicyreasons,cannotcorrectbecauseyouaredead)

ModernPositioninAlberta

- Inmostjurisdictionstodaythe“magicwords”arenolongeressentialtocreateafeesimpleestate–nowdependsontheintentionsofthetestatorasadvancedbythelanguage

46

- Alberta’sLawofPropertyAct,s.7(1):intheabsenceofwordsoflimitation,theentireestateistransferred,unlessacontraryintentionissuggestedbytheinstrument(e.g.ifIhadafeesimple,yougetafeesimpleunlessthereisanalternateindicationpresent)

o SameasinWillsandSuccessionAct,s9(2)–Ifyouleavepropertytosomeparty,allofyourrightsinitaretransferredtothemupondeath.

- “ToA”isalwayspresumedtograntafeesimpleo Presumptionoffeesimplethatcanberebuttedbyshowinggrantor’strueintent.

THELIFEESTATE–TenantforLifeClassification–3Types1.Conventional(pursavie&purautrevie)“ToAforlife(foraslongasshewishes/tohaveanduseduringherlifetime)”(pursavie–forhisorherownlife)“ToAforthelifeofB”(purautrevie–forthelifeofsomeoneelse)

- Bisthecestuiquevie,i.e.merelythemeasuringlife,nointerest- Morethanonepersoncanbechosenasthecestuiquevie

“Bhasafeesimpleinreversion”- Assoonasterm(life)isup,rightsarereturnedtooriginalparty.

“ToAforlife,thentoB”- BothAandB’srightscreated/vestimmediately- Estatescanbetransferredatanytime,butonlytheentitledportioncanbetransferred- Grantorhasafeesimpleinreversion- Transferablebutmeasuringlifeisfixed

2.ByOperationofLaw(dower,curtesy,homestead,remedial)

A. Dower–CommonLaw–ifwidowisnotdevised,sheisgrantedalifeestateinthematrimonialhomeB. Curtesy–CommonLaw–ifwidowerwasnotdevisedanythingbyhiswife,heisgrantedalifeestateinthematrimonial

homeC. Homestead–CommonLaw–dowerabolishedin1880’sinprairies-insteadfamilyhomeisexemptfromseizureby

creditors,non-owningspousecanpreventdispositionsofthehomeandhasalifeestateafterdeathofownerD. Remedial–lifeestategrantedasacourtorderedremedy

3.Byoperationofafaultypurportedgrantofanestateinfeesimple Technique:DrawInterestsonaTimelineEg1-Ogrants“toAforlife”|----LifeEstate(A)----|----FeeSimpleinReversion(O)----|Eg2-Odevises“toAforlife”|-----lifeestate(A)-----|----feesimpleinreversion(O’sestate)----|Eg3-Ograntsto“Aforlife”thentoBforlifethentoC|----lifeestate(A)----|----lifeestateB----|----feesimpleinremainder(C)----|REPUGNANCY:interpretinginconsistentgiftovers(isitalifeestateorfeesimple?)Rule:Inthecaseofwills,itis“tritelaw”thatthecourt’sjobistogiveeffecttothetestator’sintentions.Ex.“ToAinfeesimple,butshouldanythingremainundisposedofbyAthentoB"Or.“ToAabsolutelyandforeverduringherlifetime”3PotentialSolutions

47

A) TreatgifttoAasfeesimpleanddiscardsubsequentstipulationsasrepugnantB) Cutthegiftdowntoalifeestate,remaindergoingtodoneesofsubsequentgiftC) “PowertoEncroach”–thefirstgiftisalifeestatewiththepowertoencroachontheremainder

o Mayallowthelifetenanttooverreachthelifeinterestandtakeactionssuchasmortgagingorleasingthepropertyduringtheirlifetime

REPUGNANCY1:ReWalker[1924]irreconcilablewill–repugnancy–lifeestateorfeesimpleFacts:Deceasedlefthiswife“allmyrealandpersonalproperty”withanyportionofestate“undisposedofafterhiswife’sdeath,meanttogotohisnephews.Issue:Whatdidthetestatorintend?Cancourtslawfullygiveeffecttothatintention?Decision:Foundanabsolutegift–wifegetsfeesimple.Reasons:Courttriedtofindthedominant/paramountintention.Caseprovidesverylittlereasoningastohowtodeterminethedominantintentofthetestator.ProblembecauseWalkerclearlyintendedtobenefittwosetsofbeneficiaries,andthecourt’sinterpretationmeansonlyonebeneficiaryisfavoured.Thegifttothewifeisforallrightsincidenttoownershipandthenalsoattemptstogiverisetotheremainderwhichisirreconcilable.Ratio:Sometimesthetrueintentionofthetestatormaybeimpossibletofulfill

REPUGNANCY2:ReTaylor–notfeesimplejustbecauseofpowertoencroachoncapitalFacts:“Igive,devise,andbequeathallmyrealandpersonalestateofwhichImaydiepossessedtomywifeKathleen,tohaveanduseduringherlifetime.Anyestate,ofwhichshemaybepossessedatthetimeofherdeathistobedividedequallybetweenmydaughters…”But,wifethenalsoleftdirections.Issue:Wasthewifeentitledunderanabsoluteinterestorwassheonlygrantedalifeinterest?Decision:“Duringherlifetime”serveaswordsoflimitation.Willrevealedintentionoflifeestate.Justbecausesheisallowedtoencroachindefinitelyonestate(shecouldsellthepropertyoranythingduringherlifetime),still,itdoesn’tresultinanabsoluteinterest.Ratio:whereintentionoftestatorisplainandclear,courtmustgiveeffecttoitwithoutbeingdivertedbyrulesofconstruction.Powerofencroachmentisprimafacielimitedtoreasonablemaintenance.Regardlessofhowextensivethepowerofencroachmentmaybe,thisdoesnotextendtofeesimple

REPUGNANCY3:ChristensenvMartin–intentionsbasedoncircumstances,languageofwholewillFacts:Husbanddiesandgiveshousetowife“forheruseuntilshenolongerneedsit,thengiveittotheChristensens.”Issue:Whataretheparties’respectiveinterestsintheproperty?Decision:Martinireceiveslifeestatewithnopowertoencroach.ThegiftovertotheChristensensdoesnotallowthemtobecomeregisteredownersrightaway.“Saidproperty”indicatesthathewantedtogivelifeestateWITHOUTpowertoencroach.Ratio:Courttriestogiveeffecttothetestator'sintentionsasascertainedfromthelanguage,considerationsofthewholewill,andexternalcircumstances5possibilities

1. AbsolutegifttoM,hopethatwouldgivelatertoCs2. DeterminablefeesimpletoM,giftovertoCs3. ConditionalfeesimpletoM,giftovertoCs4. LifeestatetoMwithorwithoutpowertoencroach,giftovertoCs(Courtchosewithout)5. LicenseofoccupationtoM,giftovertoCs

48

RIGHTS&RESPONSIBILITIESOFLIFETENANTS&REMAINDERPERSONS

DOCTRINEOFWASTE–lifetenantandremainderperson,orco-ownersofproperty.

- Concernthatlifetenantsmaybringdownvalue,becauseinterestedinmaximizingshort-termenjoyment- Doctrinepreventslifetenantfromactingunreasonablyorinterferingwiththeremainderperson’sinterest

4Categories:

- Ameliorating:actsthatenhancethevalueofpropertyo Wasactionableatcommonlaw,butgenerallynotactionabletoday.o Contrarytojustificationsofprivateproperty–efficiency,utilitarianism

- Voluntary:activeinjuriousconductthatdiminishesvalueofthelandinthelongruno Canbeharmfulevenifdonewithgoodintentionso E.g.movingfixtures,cuttingyoungtrees,openingnewmines,over-cultivation

§ Canadianexception:notwastefultocultivate/cleartreesforcertainrepairso Thisisactionable-lifetenantisliabletotheremainderpersonunlessthegiftstatesotherwise

- Permissive:damageresultingfromthefailuretopreserveorrepairproperty.o Alifetenantisnotimpeachableforthiskindofwasteunlessthegiftimposesanexpressdutytorepairo I.e.Inactionbythelifetenantisnotactionable.

- Equitable:awardedwhendestructionisextremelyseverefromreckless,wantonandmaliciousacts.o Presumablytheonlytypeofwastethatcan’tbeexcludedo LawofPropertyAct,s.71àlifeestatedoesnotconferonlifetenant,therighttocommitequitablewaste,unless

expressedclearlyoninstrumentcreatingtheestate.OtherApplicationsofWasteDoctrine

- LawofPropertyAct,s.29-32:Appliestodowress,tenantforlifeforyears,guardiansofaminor,lessees,&sharedownership(tenantsincommonandjointtenantsareliabletotheirco-tenant)

PowersvPowersEstate-Recurringexpensesbornebylifetenant;capitalexpensesbornebyestateFacts:Deceasedgivesmotherequitablelifeestate,withpowertoencroachformaintenanceoftheestateONLY.Issue:Towhatextentistheestateobligedtopayforrepairstoproperty?Divisionofcosts:

- CostofHeating-lifetenantoutoftheincome- Repairs-ifnecessaryforpreservationofbuildingormaintainproperty-payoutofcapital

o Replacementoffurnace,fences,etc…- Repairs-ifrecurrentorperiodical-paidforoutofincome(lawncare,painting)- Insurance-generallydependsonpurposeofinsuranceinvolved

o Furnaceinsurance-notrequiredforpreservation–onlyiftheinsuranceisforbenefitofremaindermanwillthecostofpremiumsbebornebycapital

§ Trusteesmustinsureagainstlossbyfire,premiumscomeoutofincome- Mortgagepayments-interestportioncomesoutofincome,buttheprincipalportionoutofcapital- Propertytaxes-recurringpayment–income

Bestsolutionforthissituation:createatrustwherethetrusteehasfiduciarydutiestomanagetheestateinaccordancewiththesettlor’sinstructions,trusteecanthenproperlyorderdivisionofcosts

- Trusteehasthelegalestate;beneficiaryhastheequitableestate- Evenbetter:useajointtrustee;thefeesimplerevertstoothertrusteeondeath,oruseatrustcompany

GENERALPOWERSOFALIENATION

- WillsActs.3àlifetenantcansell/leasethelifeestatetoanother,buttheestatestillexpiresondeathofthemeasuringbody

49

DOCTRINEOFDOWER• OLD:Gaveawidowanlifeestatein1/3ofhusband’srealproperty• Abolishedin1886inAlberta-nowidowisentitledtodowerexceptasprovidedbyTheDowerAct

TheDowerActWhataretherights?s.1(c)

1. Vetorighttonon-owningspousetopreventdispositionofthehome2. Confersalifeestateonthesurvivingspouseinthehomestead(devisespostponed)3. Protectionfromcreditors(nowdealtwithintheCivilEnforcementAct)

WhodoestheActapplyto?

- Genderneutralsince1948- Onlyappliestomarriedcouples–mustbelegallymarried,rightsendondivorce

o NottointerdependentadultpartnershipsWhatdoestheActapplyto?

- Homesteadss.1(d)–parceloflandonwhichthedwellinghouseoccupiedbytheowner,limitedto4adjoiningresidentiallots(inatown/city)oronequartersectionofruralland

- Excludeslandownedbymarriedpersontogetherwiththirdparty(s.25)o Ifjusthusbandandwife,Dowerappliess.25(2)

- Canextendtominesandminerals(s.24)- Appliestoleaseholdsifalong-termlease- Canhavemorethanonehomesteads.3(1)àaslongasyouhavelivedineachhome.

Whatifthewilldevisesthehomesteadtosomeoneelse?

- Lifeestatetakesprecedenceoverthewill(s.18)o Ifown2ormorehomesteads,survivingspousemustelectonehomesteadss.19-20o Alsoappliestosomepersonalproperty(s.23)

§ Includestheitemsthatareexemptfromseizure–i.e.householdfurnishingsandappliancesuptoamonetarylimit

Whatdoesproperconsentlooklike?

- Ifpurchasing,requestthisconsentatthebeginningofthedeal(sosellercannotbackout)- S.4-Consentshallbecontainedinorannexedtotheinstrumentbywhichthedispositioniseffectedintheprescribedform- S.5-thespousemustunderstandtherightsthattheyarereleasingbyconsent(Acknowledgement)- Evenifnotmarried,adoweraffidavitmustbesignedbytheowner

WhenisconsentNOTrequired?

- Leasesunder3years- Ifgettingseparated,as.7agreementcanreleasedowerrightswithoutacourtorder- Courtscandispensewithconsentunders.10ofTheDowerAct

o (5)TheCourtmaybyorderdispensewiththeconsentofthespouseifintheopinionoftheCourtitappearsfairandreasonableunderthecircumstancestodoso.

o (6)TheCourtmaymaketheorderwithorwithoutimposingconditionsDoweneedDowertoday?

- ManyotherprovinceshaveabolishedDowerbecauseotherprotectionsforwidowsexist- Albertakeepsitbecauseoftheconsentprovisions

o Althoughdesignedtopreservethelandforalifeestate,theconsentprovisionsarevaluableforspousalcontrolduringtheirlives

50

CHAPTER5:ABORIGINALRIGHTSINLAND

- AboriginalrightsareentrenchedintheConstitutionActs35andpre-dateEuropeansettlement- RoyalProclamation,1763:reservedlandforAboriginals,onlyCrowncanpurchasefromthem- BothaboriginallawANDcommonlawconceptsofpossessionmustbeconsidered- Doctrine of Discovery: Principle of international law underwhich European governments could assert sovereignty over

territorypriortootherEuropeansovereigns(regardlessofthepresenceofpriorindigenousgroups)- Asunderstoodatcommonlaw,discoverygavethegovernmenttherighttogoverntheterritory,aswellastheunderlyingor

radicaltitletotheland.- TerraNullius–definedaslandbelongingtonoone.MostBritishcolonieswerenottreatedasterranullius.

o SomeBritishterritoriessettledinthe19thcenturiesweretreatedasterranullius,includingBCandAustralia.- TheRoyalProclamation,1763formallyrecognizedanaboriginallegalinterestinpartoftheterritorythatbecomesCanada.

o AlsoprovidedthatthislandcouldonlybetransferredtotheCrownviaatreaty- Constitutionallimitations:

o CrownconstrainedbythedutyandhonouroftheCrownandsec.35rights(rightsrecognizedandaffirmed)o Sec.35extendstopropertyrights.After1982Aboriginalrightscannotbeextinguishedo Sparrowheldthatsec.25rightsarenotinviolable–oncethestateactioninfringestheright,theCrownmustshow

justificationAboriginalLawvs.IndigenousLaw

• Aboriginallaw:thelawoftheCanadianstateinrelationtoaboriginalpeopleso Includescommonlawdoctrineslikeaboriginalrightsandtitle,treatyrights,s.35andlegislation(IndianAct)

• Indigenouslaw:thelawoftheparticularindigenousgroupso Includes Indigenous legal traditions that canoftenbe tracedback tobeforecontact,e.g. traditionalGitxan land

tenureprincipleso AlsoincludesformallawsenactedbyIndigenouscommunitiesexercisingself-governmentpowers

§ E.g.afirstnationlandcodeenactedundertheFirstNationsLandManagementAct

Calder(1973)• Whensettlerscame,Indianswerealreadythereàtheirrightsalreadyexisted

Guerin(1984)• Introducesthe“thehonouroftheCrown”–CrownhasafiduciarydutytoAboriginals.

Tenureunderstatutoryregimes:

• IndianAct• FirstNationsLandManagementAct• MetisSettlementsAct(AB)

TenureunderModernTreaties&Self-GovernmentAgreements:

• E.g.Nisga’aFinalAgreementprovidesforfeesimpleinterestinlandunderNisga’ajurisdictionCustomaryinterestsinlandwithinparticularindigenouscommunitiesFeaturesofAboriginallandasSuiGeneris(Oneofakind,unique)Title(DelgamuukwvBC)

- Aboriginallandisinalienable(excepttoCrown,)indivisible(heldcommunally)andAboriginaltitlepre-datessovereignty- Can’tuselandascollateralandcan’tuselandinawaythatisinconsistentwiththepracticesthatgroundtheclaimtotitle

(but,atthesametime,notrestrictedtotraditionalnativeuses)o IndianActstatesthatreservelandscanbeusedforanypurposethatcontributestothegeneralwelfareofthe

bando Remediesforinconsistentuse:groupcouldforfeittheirclaimorCrowncouldgetaninjunctionagainstthatuse

- TheseconstraintsputAboriginaltitleatadisadvantagerelativetofeesimple

ProvingAboriginalTitle(Tsilhqot’inNationvBC–nomadicnationclaimslargeswatheofland)

51

1. Sufficientoccupancyoftheland:priortoandatthetimeofBritishsovereignty

o ClaimantsmustestablishaconnectiontothegroupoccupyingthelandatBritishoccupation2. ContinuitybetweenBritishsovereigntyandpresent

o Noneedforanunbrokenchainofcontinuity3. ExclusiveconnectionwiththelandmaintainedandpresentatthedeclarationofBritishsovereignty

o Excludedothergroups,grantedpermissiontopassoverland,signingtreatieso Wherethereisonlyonegroupclaimingpossession,onlyminimalpossessionisnecessary

§ Thestandardofpossessioniscontextualandflexible§ Evidenceincludesdwellings,regularuseforhunting,closureoffields,cultivation

- Oralevidenceisacceptedincasesinvolvingaboriginaltitle- Significantpresenceisnotrequired,minimalcontrolofterritoryisusuallysufficientsolongastheAboriginalgroupcan

definebordersthroughdwellings/cultivationoffields- Titlecomesfromtheuniqueestateinland,suisgeneris.WasformallyrecognizedintheRoyalProclamationbutthisdidnot

createit

AboriginalRightsShortofTitle- Non-possessory,site-specificrights:fishing,hunting,ceremonies,etc.- Thecentralityandsignificanceofthepracticetothegroup’sculturemustbedemonstrated

o MusthaveexistedpriortocontactwithEuropeanso Customs/traditionsthatarosesolelyasaresponsetoEuropeaninterventiondonotcount

ExtinguishmentofTitle1. Rightscanbeextinguishedundertheprincipleofsovereigntybyaclear,unilateralactbyparliament.

a. Nolongervalid,Charters.35(1)preventsthisunilateralact2. Surrenderoftheland(bilateral)–mostaccepted3. Bonafidepurchaserforvalue?Maybe.(ChippewasofSarnia)

o Mustprovethedefendantisagood-faithpurchaserforvalueoftheland,thenaboriginalrightsmaybeextinguishedwithoutconsentandwithoutparliament’sintervention

JustifyingInfringementsofAboriginalTitle1. Infringementoftheaboriginalrightmustbeinfurtheranceofalegislativeobjectivethatiscompellingandsubstantial

a. Conservation,generaleconomicdevelopment,agriculture,forestry,mining,hydroelectricpower,infrastructure,settlementofforeignpopulations

2. TheinfringementmustbeconsistentwiththespecialfiduciaryrelationshipbetweentheCrownandaboriginalpeoples(proportionalitytest)

a. Mustconsiderfuturegenerationsofaboriginalpeopleb. Doctrineofpriority-governmentmusttakeaboriginalrightsintoaccountandallocateresourcesinarespectful

manner,butmustbalancewithrestofsociety’sinterest3. DutyofconsultationandaccommodationbasedonhonouroftheCrowntoactingoodfaith

a. Scopevariesonaspectrumbasedonstrengthoftheclaimandseriousnessofadverseimpacttoaboriginalpeoples,butataminimummustactingoodfaith

HaidaNationCase–Honourofcrown–dutytoconsultFacts:GovernmenttransferredloggingrightstoaprivatecompanyforapieceoflandthatHaidaaboriginalgrouphadanunsettledclaimtoDecision:DutytoconsultemergesassoonastheCrownknowsofapotentialcredibleclaimbyanAboriginalgroup.Correspondingdutyonaboriginalpeoplestobringforwardclearclaimsstatingthenatureoftheirinterests.Dutytoconsult:Amountofconsultationrequiredinagivencontextisafunctionofthedegreeoftheencroachment.

52

- Minimum=discussion/notice&disclosingofinformation- Maximum=findaninterimsolution,formalparticipationinthedecision-makingprocess,writtenreasonstodemonstrate

thataboriginalinterestshavebeenproperlyaddressed

LegislationRe:AboriginalRightsConstitutionAct,1982–s.35“theexistingaboriginalandtreatyrightsoftheaboriginalpeoplesofCanadaareherebyrecognizedandaffirmed”

• Protectedaboriginalrightscannolongerbeextinguishedbyaunilateralacts.91(24):ResponsibilityofIndiansandIndianlandsareexclusivetoParliamentIndianReserves:auniquesystemoflandholdingundertheIndianActwhereabandgainspossessionoftheland.Thebandallotsindividualparcelstomembersofthebandwhoholdunderacertificateofpossession.Theserightscanbedevisedbywill,andcanbetransferredinprincipaltoanothermemberofthegroupbutonlywithconsentofthecounsel.

- Holderforfeitsrightsifheleavesandthelandgoesbacktothecounsel.- Matrimonialactanddoweractdonotapplytothereserve(noprotectionforspouse).

ThreetypesofMetisrights:1. MetisTitle–righttooccupyandmakeimprovements,build,develop.Theserightscanbetransferred&devised,&lesser

interestcanalsobegranted(i.e.lease)2. ProvisionalMetisTitle–grantedforafixedtermwhichcanberenewed;iftheprovisionaltitleholdermeetscertaincriteriathey

canacquire“MetisTitle”(wouldhavetouseitappropriatelyinaccordancew/thewishesofthecounsel)3. Allotments–Grantedforfixedterm,intendedforfarmingorbusinesspurposes(notforresidential)

AboriginalTitleandCommonlawEstatesSimilaritiesandDifferencesSimilarities:

• Exclusiveuse/righttoexcludenon-holdersoftheinterest• Crownholdsunderlyingtitle• Crownassertsarighttogovernandmakelawsinrelationtotheland(subjecttoconstitutionalrestrictions)• AboriginaltitleisenforceableinthecourtsoftheCrown(likeotherCLestates)

Differences:• UnliketraditionalCLestateswhicharepresumedtoderivefromaCrowngrant,Aboriginaltitleisbasedonoccupationprior

totheCrown'sassertionofsovereignty• ContentoftitleisuniqueanddistinctfromanyotherCLestate(inherentlycollective,inalienable,restrictionsonuse)• ContentoftitleisbasedinpartonIndigenouslegalsystems

CHAPTER6:EQUITABLEINTERESTSBackground:TheDeclineofFeudalism

- Personalbondbetweenlordandvassalnolongerexists- Incidentsoftenureincreasinglyimportant

o Relief–tenantinheritedestatefromfatherandmustpay1monthincomefromthelando Wardship–therighttocontroltheestateandtakeprofitswhentenantisaminor

- TransformationoftheeconomyinEnglandsothatlandisnolongerasimportantTHEEMERGENCEOFTHEUSE

53

GeneralNotes- Thetrustisthemaincontributionofequitytopropertylawandaroseoutofthefeudalconceptofuse.- Summary:NobodyinEnglandisholdingtitle,alllandisheldunderdeedstousestoavoidincidentsoftenure.

Definition:Use–adeviceusedtograntlegaltitletoonepersontoholdforthebenefitofanother

- Usedtomakecharitablegiftstoreligiousinstitutions- Avoidingrelief,taxes,andotherfeudalincidents- Designatingheirs- Conveyinglandwithoutliveryofseisin- Shieldingpropertyfromcreditors,dowerrights,andforfeiture

Terminology:feoffee,feoffor,cestuiqueuse“AtoDewey,Cheatham,andHoweandtheirheirstotheuseofBandhisheirs”AisthefeoffortousesD,C&Harethefeoffeestouses,evenifonepassesawaythereisnoinheritanceBisthecestuiqueuse(thebeneficiary)Problem:“renegadefeoffees”–becausethecestuiqueuseisnotseisedoftheestate,shedoesnothavelegaltitle,thecommon-lawcourtwillnotenforcetheuse.Luckily,equitablecourtsexist.Solution:EquitablecourtsareunderthejurisdictionoftheLordChancellor,empoweredtodojustice.Feoffeesboundtoobligationsunderthedeedofuses–mustpayalltheincomeorconveythelandbacktothecestuiqueuse(theequitablebeneficiary).Orelse,thefeoffeewillburninhellandstayinjailuntiltheydotherightthing.Equity:Equityusedasaseparatesetofrules,distinctfromthecommonlaw,whichgivesrisetorightsenforceableinacourtofequityWhoisn’tboundbythedeedofuses?Thebonafidepurchaserforvalue:Someonewhodidn’tknowandisagoodfaithpurchaserforvalue.Allotherpurchasersoflandheldunderadeedofuseswillbecomethefeofeeandhavethesameobligationstothecestuiqueuses.Themoderntrustemergedfromthedeedtouses:3importantacts

1) TheDeedtoUses2) TheStatuteofUses3) Legalloopholesandequitableestates

THESTATUTEOFUSES,1535s.1:“WherepersonAisseisedtotheuseofanotherpersonB,orBcorp.,thenB’sequitableinterestisenlargedbyacorrespondinglegalinterestandA’sinterestisexecuted.”Theseisinistakenfromthetrusteeandgiventothebeneficiary.Thebeneficiarynowownsboththelegalandequitablefeesimple,sonowthekingcouldcollecttaxrevenueWhataretheimplications?

- Nomoreseparationoflegalandequitabletitle- Doesn’tapplytopersonalty*- Doesn’tapplytocompanies*- Doesn’tapplyifthereisamanagementcomponent(activeduty*)- Doesn’tapplytoleaseholdinterests*

Example:toAandherheirstotheuseofBforlife,remaindertotheuseofCandherheirs

54

BeforetheStatuteofUses?- Aretainslegaltitleinfeesimple- Bgetsequitablelifeestate- Cobtainstheequitableremainderinfeesimple

AftertheStatuteofUses?

- Bgetsalifeestateinboththeequitableandlegalinterest- Cgetstheremainderinequitableandlegalfeesimple- Aisexecutedout

UnintendedconsequenceoftheStatuteofUses

- Deliveryofseisincanbebypassedbyexecutionof“A”EscapingtheStatuteofUses

1. Avoidance–Awillnotbeexecuteda. ToACorp.infeesimpletotheuseofBinfeesimple(statuteonlyappliestopersons)b. ToAfor999yearstotheuseofBinfeesimple(Aonlyhasalease,noseisin,statutedoesn’tapply)c. ToAtoholdtheproperty,andtomanageit,andpaytherentsandprofitstotheuseofBinfeesimple(active

managerialduties)

2. Exhaustiona. ToAandhisheirstotheuseofBandherheirstotheuseofCandherheirs.Statuteofuseswascapableof

executingonlyonefeesimpleofuses.Therefore,useuponausewouldnotbetriggered.i. Aisexecutedout,Btakeslegaltitle,andCtakesequitablefeesimpleii. Whentherearetwolevelsofusesthestatuteisexhaustedbythefirstusenomatterwhat

b. UntoandtotheuseofA,intrustforC(standardmodelofcontractionofthepreviousexample)i. Themodernshortformfortrusts

THEEMERGENCEOFTHETRUST Definition:Trust–aconveyanceintendedtocreateaseparateequitableinterest,canbecreatedbyawill,adeedoftrust,oradeclarationoftrust

- Canconsistofrealorpersonalproperty,includingintangiblessuchasintellectualpropertyorstocksInAlberta–LandTitlesAct>StatuteofUses

• Unregisteredinterestsinlandarenotrecognizedaslegalinterests-exposeduntilinterestisregistered(goodfaithpurchasercouldwalkawaywithinterest)

• Accordingly,evenwhenauseisexecutedtheaffectedestatesremainequitableuntilregisteredModernTerminologySettlor-alegalpersonawhocreatesthetrust.He/sheownsthepropertyinfeesimple.Trustee–thelegaltitleholderwhoisresponsibleformanagingandcontrollingtrustproperty,investinginitorinvestingitinaccordancewiththesettlor’sexpressinstructionsbutalsosubjecttoarangeoffiduciarydutiesrequiringthetrusteetoactinthebestinterestsofthebeneficiary.Beneficiary–theequitabletitleholder.Thebeneficiaryhasnocontroloverthetrustpropertyandisonlyentitledtoreceiveperiodicincomeordistributionofpaymentfromthetrust.Example:S:“UntoandtotheuseofmytrusteeintrustforBforlife,thenintrustforC”

55

- Untoandtotheuseof(effectivelanguage)- S:Settlor- B,C:beneficiaries(equitablelifeestateforB;equitableinterestinfeesimpleinremainderforC)- Legalfeesimpleintrustee

TYPESOFTRUSTS

ExpressTrustsAnexpresstrustarisesfromtheexplicitinstructionsofthesettlorXhasalegalinterestintheland.Atthesametime,wantstonominateYasthebeneficiary.Righttouse,possession,income,etc.Traditionallydoneintheformofadeedtouses.Becomesaproprietaryinterestswhenthecourtssaythatanyoneisbound.Statuteofusesdidn’tlikethis.Deprivescrownofusefulremedy

• Now,whensomeonegetsbeneficiaryinterest,mustgetlegalinterest• Now,createanarrangementthatdoesn’tcomewithintheambit.Twowaysforthis:

o Personwhoholdstheinterestisacorporationo Makethepropertywhichissubjecttotheusepersonalty–statuteofusesonlyconcernsrealpropertyo Mustfindlanguagethatmakesitoperates,thenitrests(anyfurtherusesareinoperable)untoANDtotheuse(one

use–usesuponusesarenotsubjecttothestatute)AtotheuseofBforlife,thentotheuseofCinfeesimple.AisbeingseisedtotheuseofBandCinsuccession–howinterpreted.TruststhatarecreatedexpresslyandaresubjecttoallformalitiesrelatedtotheStatuteofUses.Theyaremostoftenusedinwillstodonatemoney,maintainwealth,etc.

ResultingTrustsWheretheequitableinterestrevertsbacktothesettlororthesettlor’sestate.Happensin3circumstances:1.ByImplicationE.g.“UntoandtotheuseofAintrustforBforlife”–Ahasfeesimple,Bacquiresanequitablelifeestateinpossession–whenBpassesawaythiswouldcreatearesultingtrustforA2.GapinEquitableTitle–wherethereisanincompletedisposalofequitableentitlements.Theequitabletitlewillspringbacktothesettlororthesettlor’sestate.E.g.S:“UntoandtotheuseofAandhisheirsintrustforBforlife.”–Bhasalifeestate,Ahasafeesimple,andShasaresultingfeesimple3.GratuitousTransferofProperty-Equitypresumesthatatrustresultsfromagratuitoustransferofpropertyifthere’snoevidenceastothesettlor’sintentions.

- Betweenspouses,thepresumptionunderAlberta’sMatrimonialPropertyActwherepropertyisregisteredinthenamesofbothmarriedpersons,jointownershipofthebeneficialinterestispresumed.

- Thepresumptionisrebuttablebybringingevidenceofintention

Ex.XconveyspropertytoYwithoutconsiderations.EquitypresumesthatXgrantedthelegalinterest,butretainedthebeneficialinterest.YisholdingaresultingtrustforX.Ex2.TitletopropertyispurchasedinY’sname,withX’smoney.EquitypresumesthatYisholdingaresultingtrustforX.ModernPresumptionsre:GratuitousTransfer:1) Presumptionsaregenderneutral

56

2) Presumptionofadvancementonlyappliestoaminorchild.3) Presumptionofadvancementdoesnotapplytospouses.

Note:howtoovercomethepresumption–basedoncircumstances,e.g.writeanotetosayit’sagift,needtoshowitwasn’ttoretainbeneficialinterestinthepropertyResultingTrusts–EXCEPTIONStotheGratuitousTransferPresumption

PecorevPecorePresumptionofAdvancement–Parent/Guardian&agratuitoustransfertoachildFacts:FatheropenedajointownershipaccountwithPaulawiththerightofsurvivorship.IfthefundsareagifttoPaula,theyareherstokeep;butifthefatherretainedthebeneficialinterestinthefunds,theyformpartofhisestate,andtheymustbesplitbetweenPaulaandMichael.In1996,hewrotealetterstatinghewas100%theownerofthefundsandtheywerenotbeinggifted.Issue:ResultingTrustorGiftofAdvancement?Decision:Courtbeganwiththeassumptionofaresultingtrustbutultimatelydeterminedtherewassufficientevidencetoestablishtheintentionforagiftofadvancement.Degreeofdisability,degreeofdependencecanbeusedasevidencetoestablishthisintention.

- Traditionallygratuitoustransfersfromafathertohischildorfromahusbandtohiswifewerepresumedtobegifts(presumptionofadvancement).

- Inallothergratuitoustransfersthegrantorwaspresumedtoretainanequitableinterest(presumptionofaresultingtrust)

ConstructiveTrustsPropertyissubjectedtoatrustbyoperationoflaw–trustthatemergesnotwithstandingtheintentionsofthepersoninquestion

- Canresultinspecificperformanceratherthanmonetarycompensation- Givenpriorityoverclaimsbygeneralcreditorsagainstthelegaltitleholder

o Butarenotgivenpriorityoverabonafidepurchaserforvaluewithoutnotice- OftenusedasaremedyinCanada

2Categories

1. RemedialConstructiveTrusts:remedycraftedbythecourtsa. Unjustenrichmentfollowingbreakupofadomesticrelationship(MoorevSweet)b. Fiduciaryobligations?(BulunBulun)

2. InstitutionalConstructiveTrusts:imposedincircumstanceswhereonepartyacquirespropertyforhisbenefitattheexpenseofapersontowhomheowesafiduciaryduty.Courtonlyenforces,doesnotcraft.

a. Saleofrealproperty–equitableinterestpriortoclosingsale?(Semelhago)b. Arisingoutofunconscionableconduct,theft–thethiefbecomesatrusteeforthetrueowner

Semelhago(SCC)• Willnotautomaticallyassumeyouhaveentitlementtospecificperformancewhenyouarebuyingrealestate.Mustshow

thatdamagesarenotappropriatebyestablishingtheuniquenessoftheproperty

BulunBulunFIDUCIARYOBLIGATION=remedialconstructivetrust?Possibly.Facts:Saleofclothingmaterialinfringedintellectualpropertyrightsofartist.Theartistsuedandwassettled.Thetribetowhichtheartistbelongedtoalsosuedonthebasisthattheartistheldthepropertyintrust.Decision:TribedoesnothavetherighttosuewhenBulunBulunhadalreadyclaimeddamages.MightregardBulunBulunasafiduciaryforthetribe.Hemightberequiredtoactinaccordancewiththeircustomstotakeappropriatestepstoprotectthepropertyandsueontheirbehalf.Ratio:Indirectwayinwhichequitableprinciplesaremadeenforceableincourt.Australiancourtemphasizedthataconstructivetrustisnotimposedautomaticallyassoonaswehaveafiduciary.Inanextremecase,equitymightimpressthepropertywithaconstructivetrust,onlywhenitisnecessarytoachieveajustresultandpreventthefiduciaryfromretaininganunconscionable

57

benefit.ForexampleifBulunBulunhadrefusedtoprotectthecopyrightfrominfringement,aconstructivetrustmighthavebeencreated.InCanada–isthereatrustmechanismthatwouldprotectthatAboriginalgroupthatcreatedthisknowledge?Everymemberofthegrouphastherighttothisculturebutmustpotentiallyactasafiduciaryforthegroup(ensuringitisn’tinfringed,suingonthegroup’sbehalf,etc.)CONSTRUCTIVETRUSTARISINGFROMDOMESTICRELATIONSHIP(includesunwedded)Traditionalposition:illegitimatecohabitation,noreliefforunweddedspouses

MurdochvMurdoch• Rancher’swifehasnoclaimtoassetseventhoughshedidlotsofwork,noresultingtrustintheabsenceoffinancial

contributiontotheacquisitionofthepropertyorevidenceofcommonintentiontosharethebeneficialinterest.Modernapproach:constructivetrustforunjustenrichment(Beblow,Moore,Kerr)

PetervBeblowDomesticlaborsufficientforclaiminunjustenrichment–remedialconstructivetrustFacts:Livedtogetherfor12years,sheassumedroleofwifetakingcareofbothhisandherkids(hedidn’thavetopayfortheseservices).Sheprovidedalotofdomesticwork.Heprovidedmoneyand‘drunkenabuse.’Sheclaimedaproprietaryinterestinthehousethatheowned.Decision:Claimantentitledtoaproprietaryremedyintheformofaconstructivetrustwherethereis1)unjustenrichment,and2)monetarydamagesareinadequate,andwhere3)theclaimant’scontributiontothepropertyissufficientlysubstantialanddirect.TestforUnjustEnrichment:

1. Anenrichment2. Correspondingdeprivation3. Absenceofjuristicreason

Mainissueis“juristicreason.”Wasthebenefitconferredbythecommon-lawwifeconferredasagift?However,courtdealswiththisbyholdingthatthereisnoobligationtoprovidedomesticservices.Morelikelythatthecoupleexpectstoshareinthewealth,ratherthanreceivecompensationforservices.Bothpartnerscreatesomethingtogetherandthereisanexpectationtosharegains.Publicpolicy:domesticservicesshouldberecognized,don’twanttoimpoverishdomesticlabourproviders,equitycansupplementthelawwhenthelawisunsatisfactory

KerrvBaranowJointfamilyventurerequiredtoallowinterestinotherassetsFacts:Sheprovideddomesticlabour,shewantsproprietaryinterestinthehouse,howevershealsowantsashareintheotherassets(millionsmadeinthehigh-techindustry.)Decision:Unjustenrichmentmayresultfollowingthebreakdownoftherelationshipwhereonepartyretainsadisproportionateshareoftheassetsproducedbyajointfamilyventure.Thisisaquestionoffactandtheclaimantmustshowanexusbetweenhis/hercontributionsandtheassetsaccumulatedbytheJFV.Mustdemonstratethattheywerebuildingsomethingtogether&relevantquestionsinclude:

- Mutualeffort,Economicintegration,Actualintent,Priorityofthefamily- “Couldhehavedoneitwithouther?”–contributionmustbesubstantialanddirectlylinkedtotheproperty

UnjustEnrichment–RemedyDefaultpresumption:monetaryaward–(i)wheretherewasajointfamilyventure,and(ii)thereisalinkbetweenhisorhercontributionstoitandtheaccumulationofwealth/assetsProprietary:mustdemonstratethatamonetaryawardwouldnotbeappropriatebyshowingalink/causalconnectionbetweenhis/hercontributionsandtheacquisitionsoftheland

CHAPTER7:QUALIFIED/CONDITIONALTRANSFERSANDFUTUREINTERESTSOverviewAbsoluteInterests:

58

1.x:toAandherheirs(feesimpleinpossession)2.x:toWforlife,thentoC(lifeestateinpossession;feesimpleinremainder)QualifiedandFutureInterests:toA’sfirstdaughter,toAonconditionthatthepropertybeusedforaschoolFundamentalConceptsReversion–Whenanownerofanestatetransfersapartoftheestate,theyretainresidueinreversion.Thepropertyinterestrevertsbacktothegrantoruponsomeevent.Remainder–Whenapartialestateistransferred,withtheresiduetopasstoanother,itisaremainder.Thepersonhaspresentrightstofutureenjoyment.ContingentInterest–interestthatiscontingentonaneventthatmayormaynothappen(notvested)VestedInterest–therightsandinterestscanbesoldatanytime,evenifenjoymentispostponed.FeesimplesubjecttoExecutorylimitation-“O:toA,providedhemarriesbyage25,otherwisetoB”

- B’sinterestdescribedasanexecutoryinterest- AndA’sinterestisdescribedassubjecttoanexecutorylimitation

3CategoriesA.DeterminableInterests–interestreachesanaturalendupontheoccurrenceofanevent“O:ToAsolongasusedasaschool.”“O:ToAuntilAmarries”

- Aacquiresafeesimpledeterminable- O’sinterestisknownasapossibilityofreverter–afencepostwithavestedinterestintheland- A’sinterestisnotabsolute,butaqualifiedone.Iftheeventualitymaterializes,A’sinterestwilldetermine(conclude)

automaticallyandtherighttopossessionwillreverttoO- Commonwordswithatemporalmeaning:“while”,“during”,“solongas”,“until”

B.ConditionsSubsequent-defeasibleintereststhatcanbebroughttoaprematureendontheoccurrenceofaspecifiedevent.“O:toAonconditionthatthepropertybeusedasaschool”“O:toAbutifAenlistsinarmy,myestatemayenter”

- Aacquiresafeesimplesubjecttoaconditionsubsequent- O’sfutureinterestisknownastherightofre-entry(RoR)–acloudNOTVESTED- Aacquiresapresentrighttopossession...butiftheconditionisbroken,Ocanelecttoendtheestatebyre-enteringthe

land- Commonwords:“butif”,“providedthat”,“ifithappensthat”,“onconditionthat”

C.ConditionsPrecedent(ContingentInterests)-theinterestisdelayedpendingtheoccurrenceofanevent.“O:toAforlife,thentoBifBgraduatesfromlawschool“

- Bhasafeesimpleinremaindersubjecttoconditionprecedent- Conditionprecedentislikea“bridge”

o IfBdoesn’tgraduate,estaterevertsbacktoO- Contingentiftheidentityoftheremainderperson(s)cannotbeascertainedatthetimeofthegrant:

o O:toAforlife,thentothechildrenofB§ ButwhatifBhasmorechildren?

OverviewofVestingfromaTemporalPerspectiveVestedinpossession Vestedininterest Futureinterests-Lifeestate-Feesimpleabsolute-Estatesubjecttoaconditionsubsequent-Estatesubjecttodeterminablelimitation

-Reversions-Vestedremainder-Possibilityofreverter*

-Estatesubjecttoaconditionprecedent-Rightsofre-entry-Contingentremainders

59

DeterminingthekindofQualifiedInterestHowdoweascertainthegrantor’sintentions?(CarolinevRoper)

- Lookattheinstrumentasawhole- Thechoiceoflanguage

o DETERMINABLELIMITATION:Durationallanguage(solongas,while,until,during)o CONDITIONSUBSEQUENT:Externalstipulation(butif,oncondition,providedthat)

TheRuleinBrownevMoody(McKeenEstateCase)–presumptionofavestedremainderFacts:Settlor'sinstructions:"intrustformywifeduringherlifetime.Dividetheresidueofmyestateequallybetweenmysisters,AandBiftheyarebothaliveatthetimeofthedeathofmeandmysaidwife.Ifonlyoneofmysistersisaliveatthetimeofdeathofthesurvivorofmeandmysaidwife,delivertheresidueofmyestatetothesurvivingsister,thesametobehersabsolutely."Widowoutlivedbothsisters.FirstInterpretation:theremainderiscontingent(subjecttoaconditionprecedent-survivingthewidow).- Implication:neitherofthemmetthecondition,estategoesbacktothesettlorSecondInterpretation(thechosenoutcome):- Conditionsubsequent:ifeithersisterpassesawaybeforetheother,thatsister’sinterestdivestssotheothersistergets

everything.Sinceneithersurvived,neitherwasdivested,andthereforetheremaindergoesequallytothesisters’estatesandnotthesettlor’s.

- Thisisfavouredformultiplereasons1. Firstinterpretationresultsinpartialintestacy2. TheruleinBrownevMoody-Iftheonlyconditionattachedtoaremainderissurvivingthelifetenant,thenthe

courtswillpresumethattheremainderisvestedandnotcontingent3. Betterreflectssettlor’sintent4. Courtdesiresearliestvestingpossible5. Courtwillonlyrecognizeacontingentinterestifthelanguageisabsolutelyclear

Phippsv.Ackers(Kotsarv.Shattock)GiftoverrulesSettlor:“myresiduaryestatetoOlimeKotsarifandwhensheshallattaintheageof21years...IntheeventofthefailureofthetrustinfavourofthesaidOlimeKotsar,tosuchcharitableinstitutionsasmytrusteesshallthinkfit.”RuleofConstructioninPhippsvAckers–conditionprecedenttransformedintoaconditionsubsequentwhen:(1)GifttoA‘if/when/assoonas’Aattainsaspecifiedageorfulfilssomeotherconditioninthefuture;(2)Withagift-overtoBonfailuretofulfilthatcondition;then(3)A’sinterestisregardedasvestedatthedatethegiftbecomeseffective,subjecttobeingdivestediftheconditionisnotsatisfiedbyA.

- Canhaveridiculousimplications,consider:o “TothechildrenofAwhentheyturn21,butifnochildreaches21,thentoB.“

§ TheruleofPhippsvAckersapplies.o “TothechildrenofA,whoturn21,butifnochildreaches21,thentoB.”

§ Theruledoesnotapply(noif/when/assoonas,etc.)sokidsonlyhaveafutureinterest

INEFFECTIVESTIPULATIONSPrecatoryWords–termsthatfallshortofestablishinganactualconditionorlimitation

- i.e.requests,understandingsEx.“itismywishthatyousetasideone-quarteroftheresiduetomyniece”

- Sometimesthesearebindingandcreateaprecatorytrust(difficulttoachieve)o Ex.“itismywishthatthecharitabledonationsaretoelderlypeople”

- Bottomline:Courtstrytoaccommodatethetestator’sintentionso Didthetestatorintendthewishtobebinding?

60

InterroremConditions–intendedtodetercontestsofthewillandaregenerallyregardedasidlethreatsnotmeanttoleadtoalossofinterest.

- However,ifthetestatorprovidedforagift-over,andthestipulationisnotagainstpublicpolicy,theinterroremconditioncanbeupheld

INVALIDCONDITIONS

- Conditionsthatencourageillegalactivity,orarecontrarytopublicpolicy- Conditionsthatareuncertain

o “OntheconditionthathemarryawifeofGermanblood“§ What%?Thecourtswillignorethiscondition.

o Higherthresholdsofcertaintyforconditionssubsequent,lowerforconditionsprecedent- Conditionsthatviolaterulesrelatedtoremoteness

o E.g.theruleagainstperpetuities(RAP)o “Onconditionthatheneversellstheproperty“

RESULTSOFINVALIDITY1. ConditionSubsequent:Recipientholdsanabsolutegift.2. DeterminableLimitation:Thegiftfails.3. ConditionPrecedent:

1. AttachedtoagiftofRealProperty–giftfails2. ForPersonalProperty,2differentapproaches(discussbothonanexam):

61

o Uncertaintyinthelaw–beforeUngerwethoughtwewoulduseJarman–Ungerseemstodiscardthisandgowithadifferentapproach.Nowwehavealongstandingruleversusajudgesayingwhatweshoulddo

FirstApproach:TraditionalRuleforPersonalProperty:Jarman/Feeney

a) Iftheconditionwasoriginallyimpossible(ex.drinkuptheocean)orrequiresaviolationoflaw,thenabsolutegiftb) Iftheimpossibilityoftheconditionwasunknowntothegrantor,ortheconditionhasbecomeimpossible,thenthe

giftfails.

SecondApproach:UngervGossen–truertothegrantor’sintention,buthardertoapply- Testatrixhas3nephewsinUSSR,willreceivemoneyiftheymigratetoCanadawithin15yearsofherdeath.Canadianlaw

madeitimpossibleforhernephewstoimmigrate.- Decision:DisregardJarman/Feeney.Instead,askwhatdidthegrantorintend?Thegiftorthecondition?Courtconcludes

intentiontobenefithernephews&giftwouldnotoffendherwishes.

INVALIDITY:UNCERTAINTY - Conditionsubsequentdemandsahigherlevelofclaritythanconditionprecedent- Conditionprecedentjustrequiresthatitbecapableofbeinggivensomeplausiblemeaning- Adeterminableinterestrequiresthesamelevelofcertaintyasaconditionsubsequent(probably)

SiftonvSiftonConditionsubsequentvoidforuncertaintyàabsolutegiftFacts:Trusteeinstructedtopaysettlor’sdaughterannually“solongassheshallcontinuetoresideinCanada.“Decision:Daughter’sinterestheldsubjecttoaconditionsubsequent,buttheconditionisvoidforuncertainty.Thecourtonlylooksforapracticallevelofuncertainty.However,theeventuponwhichtheinterestwillbedefeatedmustbestatedpreciselyanddistinctly.Noguidelinesastotemporaryabsencesthatmightbepermitted.Ratio:Onlythedescriptionofeventissubjecttotheuncertaintyexamination.Test:canthepersonwiththeinterestascertainwhentheywillforfeititfromtheoutset?

KotsarvShattockDistinguishablefromSiftonbecauseofcontinuityvs.precision“Vestedordivestedatreachingageof21yearsandbeingaresidentofaCommonwealthnation.”……vs.“continuestoreside.”Thisissufficientlycertaintobeavalidcondition.Otherexamples“ToBartforlife,onconditionthatheremainsvegan,otherwisetoLisa”

- ThisisaConditionSubsequentandisimpreciseàBartgetseverything,nocondition.“ToBartforlife,butshouldLisabecomevegan,thentoher”

- Ok,thisisaboutLisa,willbetreatedasaconditionprecedentTuck’sSettlementTrusts(1978)–arbitrationclausecanhelprendercertaintyFacts:…incaseofdisputeordoubt,thedecisionofthechiefRabbiinLondonshallbeconclusive.Issue:Istheconditionprecedentcertainenough?Decision:Yes-thechiefrabbiarbitrationclausewasenoughtocureuncertainty.Conditionprecedent=lowerthresholdofcertainty:personclaimingthegiftmustonlydemonstratethathehasreasonablyachievedthecondition.

INVALIDITY:RESTRAINTONALIENATION- Propertytransferredfromsomeonetosomeoneelseonconditionthatitwon'tbesoldoutofthefamilyorthatitwillonlybe

soldtoaparticularclassofpersons,ormaybenever(restraints)- Conditionsthatcontravenepublicpolicywillnotbeenforced

62

5ObjectionstoRestraints

1. Theymakepropertyunmarketable2. Perpetuatetheconcentrationofwealth3. Restraintsdiscourageimprovementstotheproperty4. Makesitdifficulttoobtainfinancingusinglandascollateral5. Detractfrombusinessgenerallybecausecreditorscan'treachthepropertytosatisfydebt

ValidRestraints1) Forfeiture–terminatesthefeesimpleandtransferstherightofre-entrytothegrantor(orthegrantor’sestate)ifthegrantee

triestoalienatea. MypropertytoXbutifXtriestosell,myestatemayre-enter

2) Promissoryrestraints–thepurchaseragreesnottotransfertheproperty,aspartofthesale&purchasecontract,makingthempersonallyliablefordamagesfrombreachofcontract.

b. OgrantstoA,andApromisesnottotransfertheland.3) Disablingrestraints–removesthepowerofdisposal,ifviolated,doesn’tdivesttheholderoftheproperty,justvoidsthe

attemptedtransactionIndirectRestraints(sometimesvalid)1) Rightoffirstrefusalatfixedprice2) Postmortemoptiontopurchaseatfixedprice Todetermine:assesstheeffectoftheindirectrestraintanddetermineiftheeffectistotakeawaytherighttoalienate(thinkaboutpublicpolicy).NeedtomakethecaseforthisTCSvLyons–exampleofaninvalidindirectrestraintFacts:Bennettsownlandnexttotheschool,specialrelationshipbetweentheparties.Contractsignedin1965creatingapostmortemoptiontothepurchasepropertyfor$9375.Schoolexercisestheoptionwhenthepropertyisactuallyworth135K.Decision:Theoptionforafixedpricewasunenforceableasanimproperrestraintonalienationofanestateinfeesimple,citingRosher-sonwasrequiredtoselltohismotherat¼ofmarketpriceifhewishedtosell.Effectivelyafullrestraintonalienation,becausethesonwouldneverwanttosell.Inthiscase,thecollegesetthepriceduringlifeevenlowerthaninRosher.Ratio:Optionsthatareeffectivelyfullrestraintsonalienationareinvalid.Whethertheoptionisvalid,dependsontheeffectithasrestrainingalienation.Powersofdisposalmaybeabridgedin3ways1)Restrictingthemodeofalienation–Ex.Maynotbesoldormortgaged(butallowingleases)2)Byprohibitingalienationtosomeclassofrecipients3)Byprecludingdealingsonlyforalimitedtimeperiod.Testforinvalidity–“doestheconditiontakeawaythewholepowerofalienationsubstantially?”

INVALIDITY:DOCTRINEOFPUBLICPOLICY

- Courtshavethepowertorefusetoenforcetermsthatarecontrarytopublicpolicyo Someexamples:stipulationsthatencouragecriminalbehaviour,undermineparentalresponsibilities,orseekto

controlmarriage- Chartermaybeusefulinidentifyingcorevalues- Public/privatedistinction–conferringtoafamilymemberisdifferent.

TheLeonardCaseRacisminatrustà againstpublicpolicyà conditionvoid

63

Facts:TheLeonardtrustprovidedscholarshipsforarestrictedclassofstudents(onlywhiteprotestantsofBritishHeritage).Womencouldnotreceivemorethan¼oftheamountgivenout.Inthecaseofarequiredcourtapplication,theapplicationmustbemadebeforeawhiteprotestantjudge.Valuesembeddedinthetrust:progress&civilization,theBritishEmpire,race,religion,philanthropy.TheHumanRightsCommissionfiledaformalcomplaintthatthetrustviolatedthehumanrightscodeandthetrusteeappliedtothecourtsforguidance.Statedracism.Seemstobeanimportantbasisforinterferingwiththetrust.Issue:isthetruststillvalid?Decision:Wewilltakeoutallofthediscriminatoryprovisionsandleaveitbebesidesthatusingthecommon-lawdoctrineofcy-pres.Proprietaryfreedomisbalancedagainstthisdoctrine.Ratio:Provisionscannotbeblatantlyracistorinvokingreligioussupremacy,Courtswilllookatthepreambletodeterminemotivationbehindprovisions.

DoctrineofCy-PresWhenatrustischaritableandfailsbecauseitwasagainstpublicpolicyorithasbecomerepugnanttopublicpolicyatsomelatertime,thenthedoctrineofCy-preswillapply.Thedoctrinewillremovethepartsthatareagainstpublicpolicywhilemaintainingthecharitableintentofthetrust.

McKorkill(SCC)Can’tgivemoneytoadangerousneo-naziorganization.Daughterchallenged.Onlyheir.

SpencevBMO(ONCA)Testatorcanunconditionallydisposeofpropertyevenondiscriminatorygrounds,didn’thavetopasspropertyontodaughter,eventhoughhisreasonswerebecauseshemarriedawhiteman.

ReEstherG.CastaneraScholarship(MBQB)Scholarshipforneedywomenwhowanttopursuescienceisheldvalid.Validbecausetheyarenotmotivatedbyabeliefofsuperiorityofrace,gender,etc.

KayvSouthEasternSydneyAreaHealthService(Australia)Someofestateonlytowhitepeople,giftwasheldvalidbecauseitisacharitablegift(butonlybecausetheJudgethoughtthatthehospitalcouldessentiallyprovidemorefundstoallsickchildren.)

INVALIDITY:PERPETUITIESATCOMMONLAW

RuleAgainstPerpetuities(RAP)• Acommon-lawrulethatestablishesaperiodoftimeduringwhichcontingencieswillbepermittedtoremainunvested

Rationale:promotesefficienttransferofproperty,cleartitle,andalienability.Balancestherightsofcurrentcontingentownerswithpreviousowners.AvenuesforReform:(1)Abolition,(2)Aflatstatutoryperpetuityperiod(80,360years,etc.),(3)“waitandsee”approach.Classify(identifythecontingentinterests)à Time(Establishtheperpetuitiesperiod)à Prove(Provethatremotevestingispossibleorimpossible)BreakdownoftheRule:“Nointerestisgoodunlessitmustvest,ifatall,notlaterthantwenty-oneyearsafterthedeathofsomeonewhoisalivenow”Application:RAPonlyapplieswheretherearecontingencies(interestsnotyetvested)àconditionsprecedent,contingentremainders,rightsofre-entry,executoryinterests,certaincommercialoptions,thepossibilityofreverterPerpetuityperiod:beginswhentheinteresttakeseffect(atthecreationoftheinterest)andends21yearsafterthedeathofsomelifeinbeing,orlivesinbeing.

- Will:onthedeathofthetestator(amortetestatoris)- Deed:whenexecuted—signed,sealed,anddelivered(intervivos)- Gestationperiodisaddedtothe21years

LifeinBeingorLivesinBeing(4conditions)

64

a) Ahumanwhoismentionedintheinstrument- Implicit–peoplewhohaverelevantbiologicalrelationshipstopossiblegrantees- Explicit–livesofthosewhoareoutsideofthetransferbutareexplicitlynamed(TheQueen)

b) Personwasalivewhentheinteresttakeseffect- Includesafetuswhoissubsequentlybornalive(periodisextendedbygestation)

c) Ifagroup,thegroup’snumberisascertainableandfixedatthedateofthecreationoftheinterestd) Ifagroup,thegroupmustnotbecapableofincreasinginnumber

- Ex.1:Devises“toallmygrandchildren”willsuffice- Ex.2:Grant“toallmygrandchildren”willnot;grantor’schildrencan’tbelivesinbeing

RemoteVesting:ifitispossiblefortheinteresttovestoutsideoftheperpetuityperiod,thecontingencyviolatesRAPandtheinterestwillbeimmediatelyvoid.ExamplesofRAPInfringements1.FertileOctogenarian:ThetestatordevisesBlackacretotrusteesontrustforhiswife,A,forlife,thenforA’schildrenfortheirlives,thenforsuchofA’sgrandchildrenwhoattaintheageof21years.Thispartisvoid.Thegiftfails.2.ThePrecociousToddler:ThetestatordevisesBlackacretoAforlife,thenforsuchofA’sgrandchildrenlivingatT’sdeathorbornwithinfiveyearsthereafterwhoshallattaintheageof21years.ThispartisinvalidbecauseAcouldhaveachildafterthetestator’sdeath,andthechildcouldhaveachildwithin5years.RuleAgainstPerpetuities–TheProcessStep1:IsthelimitationcontainedintheinstrumentonetowhichtheRAPmayapply?Step2:Whatisthedateofcreationoftheinterest?Step3:Whois/arethelife/livesinbeing?Dotheyfulfillthe4conditions?Step4:Isittheoreticallypossibletoconstructcircumstancesinwhichremotevestingoccurs?Step5:Canthelimitation(whichisinvalid)besavedbecauseofstatutorymodifications?(seenextpage)ReviewQuestions:

1. Xtransfersasum“intrustforAforlife,remaindertoA’sfirstchildwhoreaches21”

Valid.Aisavalidatinglife,uponA’sdeath,therecanbenomorechildren.Awillreach21within21yearsofA’sdeath.2. Xtransfersasum“intrustforAforlife,thentoA’sfirstchildwhoreaches25”

Void.Itspossibleforthechildtoreachtheagemorethan21yearsafterA’sdeath.3. Tdevises“tomygrandchildrenwhoreach21”(Tleaves2childrenand3grandchildrenunder21)

Valid.T’schildrenareafixedgroup,andtheirchildrenwillreach21within21yearsoftheirdeaths.4. Tmakesanintervivosgift(sameasin3)

Void.Tcouldhavemorechildren,groupcouldgrowandarenotvalidlifes-in-being5. Atrust“untoandtotheuseofAforlife,thentotheuseofA’swidow”

Valid.Noproblemswithvestingwhetherthereisawidowornot.6. Tdevises“tomysonMarshallforlife,thentohiswidowforlife,remaindertoMarshall’ssurvivingchildren”

Void.Marshall’slifeestateisvested,widowiscontingentbecausewedon’tknowwhothewidowis,remainderiscontingentbecausewedon’tknowwhothechildrenare.WeneedtoapplyRAPtwice.WeknowthewidowvestswhenMarshalldies,sothelifeestateisgood.Remainderisvoidbecausewidowmightnotbealife-in-being,andshecouldlivemorethan21yearsafterMarshalldies.

7. Tdevises“toAforlife,thentoA’schildrenforthelifeofthesurvivorofthem,thentoA’sgrandchildren”(atthetimeofT’sdeath,Aisan80-year-oldwomanwithtwolivingchildren)

Void.A’slifeestateisvested,A’schildren’slifeestateiscontingent,andA’sgrandchildreniscontingent.AfterTisdead,Acouldhaveanotherchild21yearsafterhisdeathsoremotevesting.

65

INVALIDITY:PERPETUITIESUNDERALBERTASTATUTE

- ApplicabletointerestscreatedJuly2,1973orlater- StatutepresupposesthatthecommonlawRAPappliesEXCEPTasprovidedbytheAct(s.2)- S.11–Theremedialprovisionsshallbeappliedintheorderofs.9,s.4,s.6,s.7,s.8

s.3–Nodispositionisvoidforonlythepossibilityofvestingbeyondtheperpetuityperiod.Themereconceivabilityofremotevestingisnolongerthebenchmarkforinvalidity.S.4–WaitandSee:don’ttreatlimitationsasinvalidautomaticallybasedonpossibilityofremotevesting,insteadwaittoseeifremotevestingoccurs.ContingenciesCAPABLEofvestingeitherwithinorbeyondtheperpetuityperioduntilACTUALeventsestablisheither(A)remotevestingisimpossible,Inwhichcaseitisvalid,or(B)theinterestwillnotvestintime,inwhichcasetheinterestisvoid,unlessitcanbesavedbyss6,7,or8.s.5–LivesinBeing:cannotusetheroyallinetolengthentheperpetuityperiod.The“waitandsee”periodis21years+anylivesinbeing.Onlypersonsreferredtoin5(2)canserveaslivesinbeing(grantor,grantee,thosecapableofproducinggrantees).Mustbealiveattheoutset,andmustnotbesolargeastomakeitimpracticaltoidentifythelastsurvivor.Thissectioneliminatestheunbornwidowproblem.S.6–ReductionofAge:ifageistheONLYissue,reduceittobevalid

o Ex.tograndchildrenwhoreach30isvoidatcommonlaw§ Underthissection,thepositionshallbereadasthenearestagethatwillwork,sovestswhen

grandchildrenreach21o Ex.tograndchildrenwhoreach30andmarryisn’tvalidevenifitsaid21

§ S.6doesn’tapplyS.7–RemedialClassSplitting:exclusionofclassmemberstoavoidremoteness-ifamemberofthegroupwon’tvestintime,statuteallowsthemtobecutout.CommonlawinsistedthatALLpartiesnecessarilyvestin21years.S.8–GeneralCy-Pres:canbringtheissuebeforeajudgewhocanre-writethedevisetobestmeetintentionsofthegrantorasbestaspossibleS.9–ReproductiveAssumptions:rebuttablepresumptionsastofertility–contrasttocommonlaw,wherethereisanirrebuttablepresumptionoffertility.

o Malescanhavechildrenatage14orovero Femalescanhavechildrenbetweenagesof12and55

S.11–Theremedialprovisionsshallbeappliedintheorderofs.9,s.4,s.6,s.7,s.8S.17–OptionstoAcquireReversionaryInterests(i.e.leases)

o RAPdoesn’tapplytooptionstorenewaleaseofrealorpersonalpropertyS.18–Commercialtransactions(ex.options)theperpetuityperiodis80years.Ifacontractstipulatesalongerperiod,theoptionisstillonlyexercisablewithin80years.Iewaitandseefor80years.S.19–Interestsdeterminableorsubjecttoaconditionsubsequent-theperiodis40yearsaftertheinterestbecomesabsolute

o Ex.“myhousetotheEdmontonlibrarysolongasitisusedasalibrary”§ TheEdmontonLibraryonlyhastousethehouseasalibraryfor40years,afterwards,theycando

whatevertheywantwithit.o Section19(5)statesthatthe40yearlimitdoesnotapplytomineralleases.

EXAMPLEofs.5:OtransfersasumintrustforthefirstofmychildrenorgrandchildrentograduatetotakeaselfiewithBieberJ.VOIDUNDERTHEPERPETUITIESACTifnotvestedin21years–BieberJcanNOTbealifeinbeing.

Scurry-RainbowOil(Sask.)Ltd.vTaylor(2001)Facts:Toplease-oilisdiscoveredonFarmer’sproperty.ImperialOilnegotiatestheoriginaldeal.ScurryRainbowmakesanagreementw/farmerthatwillallowScurryRainbowinafterIOL’sleaseends.TheagreementwithScurryRainbowincludesa42-yearlimitandisadeterminableinterest.ThisinterestviolatesRAP.

66

Issue:whethertheappellants’oilandgastopleasewiththelateHarryTaylorisrenderedvoidbyRAP.Decision:RAPdoesnotapplyincommercialsettings.InmodifyingRAP,Courtconsidersthepolicybehindtherule,andconcludesitshouldnotapplyhere.PurposeofRAPistopromoteexchangeofproperty.Basedonthiscase,inSaskatchewan,RAPdoesnotapplytotopleases.ThereisnosimilarauthorityinAlberta.However,anoptiontorenewaleaseissubjecttotherule.

CHAPTER8:LEASES,LICENSES,ANDBAILMENTSNATUREOFALEASELeasehold(EstateinLand)–Notafreeholdestate,butallowsyoutorecoverpossession(ChattelsREAL)

- Conveyanceofexclusivepossessionforacertainperiodoftime(evenagainsttheowner)- Estateisalienableandsurvivesthetenant- Modernleaseholdisahybridofcontractandproperty- Usetermslandlord(reversioner)/tenant.Tenantisshorthandfortenantforyears.

|--------Leasehold-------|---------reversion---------|Lease

- Createdbya“Demise”or“TermofYears”- Legalrelationshipwheretitleisvestedinonepersonbutrightofpossessionisvestedinanotherperson

o TenanthasExclusivePossession(THISISTHEKEYFACTOR)§ Notseisedoftheland(notcapturedbyStatuteofUses)

o Landlordhasalegal“reversionaryinterest”§ Remainsseisedoftheland

- Whiletheleasecontinues,thelandlordretainsareversionaryinterest;landlord’srighttoactualpossessionissuspendedduringthetermofthetenancy

RealActions–canrecoverproperty,notjustdamages.(Writofejectment–processforlitigatingit,ifyouwerecorrect,youreceivedyourpossessionback)TYPESOFLEASES1. Byterm:

(1)Fixedtermlease(termsmustbecertain,thoughitcanendprematurely–e.g.1day,50years)(2)Periodiclease(enjoyedforsomerecurringperiodoftime,i.e.month-to-month)

a) Commonlawpresumptionisaperiodictenancy(3)Tenancyatwill(whichmaybeterminatedatanytimebyeitherthelandlordortenant)

b) Canbecomeperiodiconpayment/acceptanceofrent,iffairlyimpliedbycircumstances4.CommercialandresidentialleasesCATEGORIESOFLEASESCommercial

- GovernedalmostsolelybythecommonlawResidential

- Usuallygovernedbyremediallegislation- Offersstandardleasearrangementsandprovidescertaincontentusuallyfortheprotectionofthetenant.Sometimesthose

termscannotbeoptedoutof- Governedbystatute,duetounequalbargainingpower,andtheconsequencesofevictiononthetenant- Thebeliefthatpropertylawistheappropriatevehicleofredistributingwealthbetweenownersandtenants- ResidentialTenanciesAct,MobileHomeSitesTenanciesAct

67

ESSENTIALELEMENTSOFALEASE(Ifvoidduetomissingelementandtenantpaysrentandthereisapresumptionofperiodictenancy)

1. Descriptionofparties(identification)2. Descriptionofproperty(“demisedpremise”)3. Demiseofthepremisesforacertainterm4. Dateofcommencement(presentorfuture)5. Rent,ifany–indicia,notrequirement,canmakeagiftofalease6. Writtenrequirement

a. If3yearsorlonger–StatuteofFrauds&LandTitlesAct,Albertab. Ifover3years:Leasesmustbeinwritingandsignedbylessorotherwisetenancyatwilliscreatedc. Failuretocomplyresultsinatenancyatwillthatcanbeterminatedatanytimed. Somerelaxationofthisrule-ifpossessionconveyedwithoutwrittenleaseandthelandlordacceptsrent,thentheCL

willpresumethatthisisamonthtomonthrentor

LEASESVERSUSLICENSES(FATAC)

Lease LicenseExclusivePossession OnlyaRighttoUse(can’tsueintrespass)

Non-Revocable(statutoryprotectionagainsteviction) Revocableatanytime–onlyrecoveryinequityEstateinLand NotanEstate–purelycontractual

Qualityoflease:Bindingonsubsequentpurchasersofland

Landlordcansellwithoutobligation

Noticeisrequiredbeforeeviction Nonoticeisrequired

Streetv.Mountford(Intentionofpartiesastosubstantiverightsconferrediswhatmatters)

- Iftheagreementhasalltheelementsofatenancy,itwillberegardedassuch- Whetherthepremisesarebeingusedforbusinessorresidentialdoesn’tmatter- Thequestionisnotwhetherthepartiesintendedtograntalease/license,itiswhetherthepartiesintendedtograntthe

essentialingredientsofthelease/license,ieexclusivepossessionforterm.RequiredelementstocreateaLease(FatacLtdvInlandRevenue):

1. Intentiontobeboundbystatutoryprotectionslimitingeviction- Excludesrelationshipsofgenerosityorfriendship- Rentcanbeevidence,butitisnotnecessary

2. Righttoexclusivepossession3. Adefinedterm–fixedorperiodic

Wheretherighttoexclusivepossessioncanbeterminatedpursuanttosomelegalrelationshipextraneoustothelegalrelationshipoflandlordandtenantindicateslicense.

- Ex.conciergehasrighttoexclusiveusedependentonhis/heremploymentàlicense

Metro-Maticv.Hulmann(Limitontypeofusedoesnotdetractfromitbeingalease)Facts:Metro-Maticoperatesalaundryroominaresidentialbuilding–originallandlordsellsthebuilding.Newlandlordclaimsheisnotboundbecausehedidn’tsigntheagreement.Issue:LicenseorLease?Decision:Lease–newlandlordisbound.

- Minorderogationsandrestrictionsonthetenant’sexclusivitydoesnotdestroytheleaseinitsentirety- Occupancydemonstratingpossessionà havingmachinesthere- Languageusedsuggestsalease(“rent”;“demise”)indicateddurationoftheterm.- Commontoassignuseofpremiseincommercialleases.

68

NATUREOFTHELANDLORD’SANDTHETENANT’SINTERESTSASSIGNMENTVS.SUBLEASE

- Atcommonlaw,thetenanthastherighttodeal(e.g.transfer)withtheunexpiredpartofpossession.However,theagreementmayrestrictthesecommon-lawrights

o Assignmentisatransferofatenant’sfullinterestintheleaseisconveyedo Sub-Leaseisatransferofashorterperiodlessthanfullterm(evenonedayless)

- Theimportantdistinction:assignmentallowsforaprivityofestateandforcovenantstorunwiththelandASSIGNMENT

- Tenant’sfullinterestintheleaseisconveyed(horizontaltransfer)o T2(assignee)hasnoprivityofcontractwithlandlord,butthereisprivityofestate

§ PerSpencer’sCase:ifT2tookT1’slegalestate–thereisprivityofestate–therefore,onlythetermsoftheleasethatconcernthelandarebindingagainsttheassignee.Doesnotincludetermsofapersonalnatureonlyrealterms,e.g.“covenantsthattouchandconcernland.”

o T1remainscontractuallyboundtothelandlord3AncillaryTestsforCovenantsthatTouchandConcerntheLand(notdeterminative)

1) Doesthecovenantaffectthelandlordasalandlordandatenantasatenant?(Personalcapacity)2) Doesthecovenantaffectthenature,quality,valueofthelandortheusetowhichitmaybeput?3) Wouldthecovenantloseitsvalueifitwereseveredfromtheproperty?

Eg.Obligationtopayrent,dutytorepair,restrictiontotherighttoalienate.Ifyouwanttoprotectyourself,saythatinthecaseofassignment,anewleaseshouldbesigned.LawofPropertyAct,s65(1)(codifiesSpencer’sCase):PersonswhoacquirereversionaryinterestortheleaseholdinterestofthetenanthavealltherightsandaresubjecttoalltheobligationsbasedontherealcovenantsoftenancySUB-LEASE

- ThelandlordhasnoactionagainstTenant2(assignee),buthedoesagainstTenant1(assignor).Noprivityofcontractorestate.

o Ifheshouldbreachacovenant,LandlordwillgoafterTenant1o Caninsertaclausethatsaysnosublettingornosublettingwithoutthelandlord’spermission

THECONCEPTOF“TOUCHINGANDCONCERNING”

MergerRestaurantsv.DMEFoodsLtd.(ApplicationofPrivityofEstate)Facts:LakeviewwantstopermitBonanzaanditspatronstoexclusivelyusespacesinaparkinglotthatwasoriginallycommontoalltenants.LakeviewandMergerstandindirectrelationshipthroughtheassignment.Issue:Isthetermtousealltheparkinglotsincommonatermthattouchesandconcernstheland?Decision:Yes–itisatermthattouchesandconcernstheland.Theextentandavailabilityofparkingspacesinashoppingplazaaresoessentialthattheywilldirectlyaffectthenatureandvalueoftheland.MergercanenforceagainstLakeview,becauseLakeviewisanassigneetothecontract

Andersonv.BC(Parkingnotspecifiedinleaseàcannotbeimplied;noprivityofestate)Facts:Governmentexpandsthehighwayandbuys1/3ofaparkinglotfromtheowneroftheplaza;businesseslosemoney.TenantsueslandownerclaimingimpliedtermintheleasegivingthemtherightforparkingIssue:Isthetenantentitledtoanycompensation?

69

Decision:Canweimplythetermofarighttoparking?No–can’tdemonstratethattheparkingspotsbeingexpropriatedwerespecificallyforAnderson’sbusiness.Parkingrightsmustbeexplicitlystatedinthelease.

LIMITSONTHETENANT’SRIGHTTOALIENATE–RIGHTTOASSIGNTHELEASEHOLD

• AtCLatenantmaysublettheinterestunlesstheleaseagreementstatesotherwise–usuallyhavetoobtainwrittenconsentofthelandlord

• ThiskindofclauseisusuallyqualifiedbytheprovisothatthelandlordwillnotwithholdconsentunreasonablyorarbitrarilyRule:

• AtCL,iftheleaseissilentontherighttoassignyoursublease,thenthetenantmaydoastheyplease(assign,sublet,etc.)• Iftheleasestipulatestheconsentofthelandlordtoassignisrequired,thenthelandlordmaywithholdconsentforany

reason• Iftheleasestipulatestheconsentofthelandlordisrequired,butitshallnotbewithheldarbitrarilyorunreasonably,

theninacaseofdisputethecourtmustdecideifthecaseisunreasonablyorarbitraryinthecircumstanceso NOTCORRECTthatthelandlordmustneverbereasonable–allaboutwhattheleasesays

Sundancev.Richfield(It’sonthetenanttoestablishunreasonablerefusal–economicimpact:reasonable)Facts:Twotenantsleasingseparatepremisesinthemall.Leasesays

1. Consenttosubletorassigntheleaserequirespermissionofthelandlord,butthelandlordcannotwithholdconsentunreasonablyorarbitrarily

2. Iftheothermajortenant(BeaverLumber)objectstothenatureofthebusiness,itwillconstitutereasonablegroundsforrejection

RestauranttriedtosublettoSwissChalet,butlandlordrefusedtoallowit,claimingthatthetypicalcustomerspendstoomuchtimethereandwouldtakeawayfromtheparkingspotsforBeaverLumber.Decision:Majority-ReasonableforBeaverlumbertoobjectbecausethenewassignmentwouldaffectitsbusiness.Evenwithouttheclause,thelandlordcouldrefusebecausetheirpecuniaryinterestwouldbeaffected.Theonusisonthetenanttoestablishunreasonableness.Dissent-Thephrase“natureofthebusiness”isvagueandisn’tvalidlyraisedasaconcerninthiscase.Beaverisconcernedaboutlocation,notsellingchickens.Factorsfordeterminingwhetherrefusalisunreasonable:

1. Burdenisontenant:tenantmustshowthatthelandlordhasunreasonablywithheldconsent;2. Testiswhetherareasonablepersonwouldwithholdconsent,regardlessofreasonsofspecificlandlord3. Courtcanonlyuseinformationavailabletolandlordattimeofrefusal4. Mustconsiderexistingprovisionsofleaseàrightsoftenanttoassignandrightoflandlordtodeny5. Landlordmaywithholdconsentifassignmentdiminishedvalueofrightsoritsreversion6. Probabilitythattheassigneewilldefaultisreasonablegroundsforwithholdingconsent

- Financialpositionofassigneeisarelevantconsideration7. Mustconsidercommercialrealitiesofthemarketplaceandtheeconomicimpact

NOTE:InAlberta,thereisnolegislationthatmandatesalandlordmustbereasonableinhisrejectionofasublettororassignee.

OBLIGATIONSOFLANDLORDSANDTENANTS(Commercial)Covenants

- Exampleso Topayrent,torepair,tosupplypremiseswithheat&water(presumedbystatute)

70

o ToInsure,nottoassignwithoutconsent,quietenjoyment- Canbeonexpressterms–ifnotinthelease,questionifitwasagreeduponimplicitly- Partiescanalsoincorporatetheusualcovenants

o E.g.iftheleasesays“withtheusualcovenants”wehaveastandardsetofcovenantssuppliedbytheCL- InAlbertatherearecovenantsinsertedbyshortreference–scheduledtotheLandTitlesAct

o E.g.says“thetenantwillfence”–theActgivesfullcontentsthataredefined,sojusthavetoincorporatethebasicstatement

- Covenantsareconsideredindependentoftheestateo Failurebyonepartytoperformdoesnotgivetheotherpartyarighttoterminatetheestate

- Unless,acovenantisframedasaconditionofthelease.Estateisapropertything,covenantsareacontractthing.

• Ex.Covenanttopayrentorfaceeviction(commercialproperty)o Leaseholdinterestsubjecttoaconditionsubsequent.

TERMINATIONANDREMEDIES

LandlordRemediesOnabreachofconditionbythetenant,thelandlordmay:

- Re-enterthepremises(therebyterminatingthelease)OR- Maintaintheleaseandsuefordamages- Levydistraint(Seizegoodsofthetenantuntilrentispaid)–don’thavetoknowthis

WaystoEndtheLease

1. Expiration-leaserunsoutnormally.2. Disclaimer-tenantdeniesthetitleofthelessor.Thisgivesrighttotermination.3. Merger-throughthepurchaseofthereversionaryinterestbytenant.4. Frustration-ifsomethingthatisnoone’sfault,substantiallychangesthesubjectmatteroftheleasethentheleaseis

viewedascomingtoanend.5. Breach-breachofacovenantbythetenantthatgiveslandlordoptiontore-enter6. Surrender-bymutualagreement(can’tbeunilateral);abandonment.

- Aleasecanbebroughttoanendbysurrenderasaconsequenceofanexpressactofrepudiationbythetenant,andacceptanceofthesurrenderbythelandlord

- Actofsurrender/acceptancecanbeambiguous.Opensupproblemtobeexploredincaselaw- RulesetoutinGoldhar

ABANDONMENT/SURRENDER–repudiationbythetenant.Whenabandonmentoccurs,thelandlordhas4optionsavailable(1-3:Goldhar;4:HighwayProperties):

1. EnforcetheLease-refusesurrenderandsueforarrears&rentasitcomesdue2. Acceptthesurrender-terminatetenant’sinterestintheproperty

- Alltermsandcovenantsoftheleaseareobliterated- Nolongeraleasesocanonlysueforarrears- Problems:needtofindanewtenantandbearthelossofpotentialmonthlyrentdifference

3. Priortotakingpossession,providenoticeofintenttosubletorassignleaseontheirbehalf,thensueforthedifferenceonceanothertenantisfound.Landlordbecomesanagentfortheex-tenant.

4. Acceptsurrenderandnotifythetenantthataclaimmaybebroughtforprospectivelossescausedbyrepudiationovertheunexpiredportionoftheterm.(HighwayPropertiesv.Kelly,Douglas&Co.)

GoldharvUniversal(Outlinedfirst3optionsunderabandonment;applied#3)Facts:Tenantstuckinaleasetheywantoutof,sentnoticeoftermination.Landlordrejectedtheclaimbuttenantmovedoutanyway.Landlordsuedfor3monthsitspentsearchinganewtenantandthedifferenceinrentIssue:Sincethepartiesdidnotagreetoterminatethelease,didsurrenderbylawoccur?

71

SurrenderbyLaw:- Canresultwhentheparty’sconductisinconsistentwiththecontinuedexistenceofthelease- Twocategories:

o Whenlandlordtakessomepossession:Ifequivocal,tenantmustprovethatlandlordintendedtotakepossessionbackandsurrenderpossessionofthelease

o Landlordsignsnewleasewithadifferenttenant:Thisisunequivocalbecauseitcanonlybevalidifthefirstleasewasterminated

§ Exception:thelandlordmay,withnoticetothetenant,takepossessionontenant’sbehalfandsubletorassignit;suingfortheshortfallonceanothertenantisfound

- Landlorddidnotgivenoticesoitcouldnotclaimoption#3- AnticipatoryBreachorDutytoMitigateDONOTAPPLYàtheyarepartofcontractlawàthischangesinHighway

Propertieso Makeadistinctionbetweenaleaseandanotheragreement-ifpartiessignanagreementforaleaseanditstarts

nextmonth,youareintheworldofcontractlaw.Oncepossessionisconveyed,youareintheworldofproperty(sonodutyforthelandlordtomitigatetheirdamagesasrequiredincontractlaw)

HighwayProperties(Leadinglandlord/tenantcase,introducedoption4:futuredamagesafterabandonment)Facts:Supermarketleasedalargespaceinashoppingmallonconditionthatthebusinessoperatescontinuously(covenant).Businesswasnotsuccessfulandwithin2years,tenantabandonedtheproperty.Thisunderminedtheprofitabilityandviabilityoftheentireplaza.Attrial,noprospectivedamagesweregiven.Landlorddidnotgivethespecific“Goldhar”noticethattheyareseekingatenant.Issue:Whattypeofdamages/remedycanthelandlordclaim?Decision:Option4-allowslandlordtosuecontractuallyforfuturedamages,notjustpast.Damagesareclaimedasthepresentvalueoftheunpaidfuturerentfortheunexpiredperiodoftheleaselesstheactualrentpaidbynewtenant.Canalsosueforprovablelossesresultingfromrepudiation.(Basicallyanticipatorybreach–Laskinissayingthere’snodifferencebetweenGoldharapproach,andoption#4toterminatetheleaseandprovidenoticethatthey’reseekingdamages)LaskinfoundsupportinolderAustraliandecisionswithoutwaitingforfuturemonths(alsolawinUSA)tochangeCanadianlaw.CLmakesadistinctionbetweenactsofthelandlordthatareequivocalandunequivocal

• E.g.landlordsignedaleasewithanewtenant,youcan'tclaimanythingunderthenewleasebecausethenitisobliteratedandyouwouldbeestoppedbecausethesecondleaseisonlyvalidifthefirstleasewassurrendered

• Optionslessthansigningalease-e.g.changinglocks,removingbelongings• Needtolookatthecircumstancesandconcludewhetherornottheleasewassurrenderedbyimplication-whichwould

allowforaclaimundertheleaseResultingImportantChangestoCommon-Law

- Stillnodutyofmitigationincommercialleaseso But,thereisoneinresidentialleases*o Kaplinskythinksthisdutyofmitigationshouldbeimposedinallleases.

- Re-lettingdoesnothavetobeonthetenant’sbehalf- Harmonizescontractlawwithleases(CourtallowedplaintifftosueforANTICIPATORYBREACH)

o SCCdecidedthatitwasnolongersensibletoprecludeacommerciallandlordfromtherangeofremediesavailableonbreachofaregularcommercialcontract

- Canonlyapplyoption4whenthereisacovenanttooperatecontinuously- Ifnonotice,onlyoptions1&2areavailable

o Landlordcanpursuealltheremedies,providedtheysendanoticeo Landlordmustgiveaclearindicationofwhichremedytheyarepursuing

DOCTRINEOFEFFICIENTBREACH

72

EvergreenvIBI(Landlordbreach–doctrineofefficientbreachpotentiallyappliestocommercialleases)Facts:BuildinginVancouver,leasedbyadesignercompany(IBI).Landlordwantsittobecomearesidentialbuilding,buttherearestill3yearsleftonthelease.Landlordnotifiedthecompanythatitwouldnotbeabletocomplywithitsobligationsunderthelease,IBIrefusedtomoveandallegesthatthebuildinghasspecialarchitecturalvaluethatmeritstheremedyofspecificperformance.DoctrineofEfficientBreach:Ifthereisacontractbetween2parties,anditisnolongerintheinterestof1partytomaintainthecontract,theywillbreachthecontractandpaydamages.Thelawisunclearonwhetherthisdoctrineappliestocommercialleases.Thisisalease–notacontract,butanestateinland.Thelandlordcannotunilaterallycanceltheestate.Nevertheless,theBCCApermittedEvergreentocancelthelease.ThecasewassettledbeforeitgottoSCC.InOntario,thecaselawwenttheoppositeway(ONCATNGAcquisitions–leaseisanestateinland,thereshouldbenoefficientbreach).Ontheotherhand,thereisalotofcommentarysupportingtheBCCAdecision–KaplinskythinksthedoctrineofefficientbreachshouldapplyTvGAcquisitionsOnepartytoaleasecannotunilaterallyenditsobligationsunderthelease(sayingtheCourtofAppealinEvergreengotitwrong)

LICENSES

- Notaninterestinlandorproprietaryinterest,butmerelypermissiontodowhatwouldotherwiseamounttotrespass.- Goodfaithpurchaserforvalueisnotboundbyalicensegiventoanother- Canbeexpressorimplied- Cannotbeassigned- Notbindingonabuyerfromthelicensor

FormsofLicenses1.BareLicense–permissiontobeonland

- Fullyrevocableatanytime–notsupportedbycontract- Includesimpliedlicenses–allowingsomeonetoknockonyourdoor- Ifsomeonemakesameancommentaboutpotatoesbeingundercooked,licensedcanberevoked.

2.ContractualLicense

- Supportedbycontract–revocablesubjecttotermsofthecontracto Ex.Baseballticketcouldnotberevokedforfailuretoproduce,asthetermsofticketcontractdidn’tallowfor

revocationinthesecircumstances(Davidsonv.TorontoBlueJays)o RemovedfornotproducingticketwasNOTmisbehaving

3.IrrevocableLicense- StilesvTodMountain- Usuallyonlyelevatedunderunjustenrichmentorproprietaryestoppel

SignificanceofLicense

- Canbeexpresslyconferredorimplied.- Implicitconsenttoenterpremises,unlesstoldtoleave- Licensecanbeelevatedtoirrevocableequityinterestinspecificcircumstances

o Usuallyunderunjustenrichmentorproprietaryestoppel–establishedbyencourageddeprivation(Stiles)§ Ifanownerrequestsorallowsapersontospendmoneyonthepropertyontheexpectationthattheywill

allowthemtostay,theownerispreventedfromrevokingthatpromise(Torontov.Jarvis&StilesvTodMountain)

§ FuturepurchasersBOUNDbyirrevocablelicenseWITHnotice- Cowper-SmithvMorgan2017SCC61.Anequitycapableofestoppelcanarisewherethereis:1. Arepresentationorassurancebyapropertyowneronthebasisofwhichtheclaimantexpectstoenjoyarightorbenefit

overtheproperty;2. Reasonablerelianceonthatexpectation;and3. Detrimentresultingfromthereliancesuchthatitwouldbeunfairorunjustforthepropertyownerwhomadethe

representationtorenege.GoodfaithpurchaserforvaluewouldNOTbebound–becauseNOnotice.

73

Thefailureofonepartytoperformdoesnotprovidetheotherpartyarighttoterminatetheestate

RESIDENTIALTENANCYREFORM

(a)Theimpetusforreform-Toaddressthepowerbalancebetweenlandlordsandtenants(b)Areasofreform

1. Greatersecurityoftenure2. Increatenoticeperiodsfortermination3. Fixingofstandardobligationsoflandlordsandtenantstofairlyallocateresponsibilities4. Increaseavailabletenants’remedies5. Curtailmentoflandlords’self-helpremedies6. Establishmentofprohibitionsonbargainingawayofstatutoryrights7. Eliminationofvariousanachronismsaffectinggenerallandlord/tenantlaw8. Establishdisputeresolutionprocedurestobeinformal,effective,expeditious,andinexpensive9. Creationoflandlord/tenantadvisoryboards10. Rentcontrolmechanisms

(d)Therentcontroldebate1.Rentcontrolsareeconomicallywasteful.Forceslandlordstorentoutpremisesatlessthanmarketvalue,whichrestrictsincentivetomaintainproperupkeepandcreatesincentiveforthewealthytocreateblack-marketswheremoneyisextractedas‘keymoney”beforeatenancyisre-assigned.2.Ontheotherhand,nothinginstatutespreventlandlordsfromenactingonceayearincreasestosuchanexorbitantamounttogetaroundotherobligationsintheRTA.Securityoftenureisthereforesignificantlyimpactedwithoutsuchrentcontrolmeasures.

RESIDENTIALTENANCIESACTPurposeoftheresidentialtenancyreformistoREDUCEthecostofcontracting.Itwouldbeeconomicallyinefficienttohaveeachlandlordandtenantdrafttheirownagreement.Also,tostandardizethetermsinordertoprotecttenantsagainsttermsthatmaybeenteredintovoluntarily.Importanttoprotectvulnerablepersons–lowmeans,victimsofdomesticabuse.S.1:Definitions/Interpretation

- SubstantialBreach–breachunderS.21orseriesofbreachesthathaveaseriouscumulativeimpactS.2:Application

- (e)Doesn’tapplytogroupdormsrentedbyeducationalinstitutions,- Doesn’tapplytomobilehomeparks,campgroundsmotels/b&bs(if<6months),socialcarefacilities(nursinghomes),Uni

Residences- (b)Doesnotapplytopremisesrentedtoanemployeeaspartoftheiremploymentcontract

S.3:ActPrevails- Anyreleaseorwaiverbytenantoftherights,benefits,orprotectionsunderthisActisvoid- IfthereisanyconflictbetweentheActandanythinginthelease,theActprevails

PART1–PERIODICTENANCIES–noterminationsforfixedterms.S.6:TerminationbyLandlord

- (1)TerminationmustbeforareasoninS.11orS.12,orforpersonalusebylandlord,majorrenovations,conversiontonon-residentialuses,orastudentisnolongerastudent

S.7/8/9:NoticetoTerminate- ByLANDLORD:WeeklyLeaseà1week;MonthlyLeaseà3months;YearlyLeaseà3months

o (Commonlaw:MonthlyLeaseà1month)- ByTENANT:Monthlyà1month;Yearlyà2months

S.10:RequirementsofTerminationNotice- Noticeisofnoeffectunlessitisinwriting&signed,&mustsetoutreasonsforterminatingtenant- Mustalsoidentifythepremisesandstatethedate

S.11:NoticetoTerminateTenancyofEmployee

74

- IssubjecttoAlberta’slawapplicabletothetenant’semployment,orasagreedinthecontract,or1weekwhicheverislongerorinaccordancewithregulations

S.12:NoticetoTerminateforCondoConversion- 6months’notice

S.14:RentIncreases- Maximumofonetimewithinacalendaryear

o 12weeks’noticerequired(weektoweek);90daysforallotherperiodsPART2–OBLIGATIONSOFLANDLORDANDTENANTS.15:NoticetoterminatenotrequiredforafixedtermtenancyS.16:Landlord’sCovenants

- (a)tenancyavailablefirstdayoflease(b)quietenjoyment(c)mustmeetminimumstandardsunderPublicHealthActS:17:CopyofLeaseAgreementmustbeprovidedwithin21daysS.21:Tenant’sCovenants(violation=substantialbreach)

- Rent&vacateontime,notinterferew/rightsofothertenants,keepreasonablyclean,noillegalacts,nodamageS.22:AssignmentandSublease(modifiescommon-law;differentrequirementsthanforcommercialleases)

- Requireswrittenconsentfromlandlord- Landlordcannotunreasonablyrefuse;mustprovidewrittenreasonablegroundsforrefusal;noresponsein14days

constitutesacceptance;cannotchargeafeeforgivingconsent.S.23:EntryofPremises

- Mustprovidenoticeorobtainconsent,unlessreasonablegroundsindicateanemergencyorabandonmentS.25:ProhibitionreTerminationofTenancy(Retaliation)

- NoretaliationagainsttenantforfilingacomplaintPART3–REMEDIESOFLANDLORDANDTENANT(againmodifiescommon-law;differentthancommercialleases)S.26:Landlord’sRemedies

- Recoveryofrent,sueandtakepossessioniftenantfailstovacate,damages,forsubstantialbreachàtermination- Substantialbreach=s.21violations

S.27:RepudiationofTenancy- Landlordmayacceptorrefusesurrenderandcontinuethetenancy,butlandlordhasadutytomitigate- Ifacceptance,Landlordisstillentitledtoclaimdamagesresultingfromasubstantialbreach(amountofdamagesforrestof

term,etc)S.28/29:TerminationforSubstantialBreachbyLandlord/Tenant

- Righttoterminateforanysubstantialbreach(14days’noticeinwriting&signedwithreasonsandterminationdate)S.37:Tenants’Remedies:Mayapplytoacourtfordamages,abatementofrent,recoveryofcosts,terminationoflease

BAILMENT

ELEMENTSOFABAILMENT- Bailmentisthetemporarytransferofpossession(nottitle)inpersonaltyfromownertobaileewithanexpectationof

reversionbacktothebailorinthefutureo E.g.ChangeofpossessionWITHOUTachangeofownershipo Canbecontractualorgratuitouso Abailmentdoesnotrequireconsent,youareabaileeanytimeyoupossesssomeoneelse’sgoodso Lawrequiresbaileetotakereasonablecaretothatofprudentownero Generally,mustberedeliveredintheiroriginaloralteredform

- Exceptions:repairsorpartsreplaced,deliveredtoa3rdparty,- Quasibailment–afindermaybedeemedtobea“quasi-bailee”onthebasisthatthetrueownerwouldprobablyagreeto

thefindertakingpossessiononhisorherbehalf- Involuntarybailment–whengoodsareimposedonapartywhothenassumescontrol- Unconsciousbailment–persontakespossessionunderthemistakenimpressionthattheyownthegoods

Stepsforbailmentclaims:1. Bailormustshowthattheactscomplainedofoccurredduringthecourseofthebailment,notbeforeorafter

75

2. Once#1isshown,burdenisshiftedtobailee,becausebaileeisinapositiontoshedlightonthefacts3. Baileemustdisprovethathisnegligencecausedtheinjury.Showeitherthat:

- Theyactedasaprudentownerandundertookreasonableprecautions–standardofcareisreasonablecaretaken- Whatstandardofcareareweconcernedwith?

o Traditionally,dependsonforwhomthebailmentisbeneficial.Differentifforbailor,bailee,orboth.Ifforbailee’sbenefit,highstandardofcare.Ifforbailor’sbenefit,moderatetolowerstandardofcare.Ifforboth,regularstandardofcare.

o Now,Letourneausuggestthatthereisonestandardof“reasonableness”- Anyfailingsinthatregardwerenotthecauseofthelossorinjury(causation)- Formerlythelawdemandedhigherstandardsofcareforarewardbaileecomparedtoagratuitousbailee

o Thisisnolongerthecase–thereisonestandard–simplenegligenceEconomicPerspectiveonBailment

- Mustgiveincentivestopeopletoavoidrisksandtakeprecautions- Theowneristheonlyonewhoknowsthevalueoftheitemsonbailment- Notefficienttoputtheonusonthedefendant,becausetheownerisbestpositionedtotakeprecautions

WaiverofLiability

- Abaileebycontractmayinsertawaiverclause- Thesearestrictlyconstrued–iffornegligencethenitmustbeexplicitlymadeorimpliedunambiguously

OBLIGATIONSOFABAILEE(LetourneauvOttoMobiles)Ifthereisabailmentcontract,obligationsofpartiesaresetoutincontract.Ifthereisnobailmentcontract,thencourtstakethefollowingapproach:ModernApproach–Negligence

- Obligationofbaileegenerallyistotakethesamecareofthegoodsreceivedaswouldaprudentowner,actingreasonably,beexpectedtotakeofhisowngoods.Dutyofcareowedissimplenegligence

StrictLiabilityMinichiellov.DevonshireHotel(baileeliableforcontentsofcar,ifhehasknowledge)

- Phadacasefullofjewelleryinthetrunkofhiscarwhenheleftitinalotwiththekeysintheignition(asinstructed);Defendantsweremadeawareofjewellerybutacceptedthebailmentnonetheless.Thecarwasstolen

- Court:Baileeisliableforthecontentsofthetrunk(jewelleryincludedinthebailment)o Liableforreasonablyexpectedcontentsorifhehasknowledgeofunexpectedcontentso ReasonablecarewasNOTmetbecauseofthestatementthattherewerevaluablesinthecar.o *Baileeforreward*-carhasvaluablesinit,enoughtomakeDliableforthevalueofthegoods.

Whoshouldbearspeciallosses?RulethatmakesthemresponsibleforthespeciallossinMinichellioisnotconsistentwiththeruleinHadleyvBaxendale-therethedefendantisexcusedfromlossesthataren'tgenerallyforeseeable-BUTconsidertheruleintortlawinVosburg(thinskull)-needtotaketheplaintiffaswefindthemOBLIGATIONSOFABAILOR

- BaileeisonlyresponsibleforcontentsreasonablyexpectedtobewithinthepersonaltyANDanythingthatisdrawntotheattentionofthebailee

- Ifleavingacarwithvaluablediamondsinit,noticemustbeprovidedtobaileebeforebailmenttakeeffect,orbaileeisnotliableforanyloss(innkeeperexception)

- Bailorforrewardhasdutytoensurechattelsarereasonablyfitandsuitableforthepurposeofthehirer

Letourneauv.OttoMobilesEdmonton(issueofwhentransferofpossessionoccurred)Facts:Plaintiffslefttheirtrailertoberepairedbythedefendants.Itwentmissing.

76

Issue:Isthereabailment?Decision:1.TransferofPossession?Yes-LetourneauactedpursuanttoD’sinstructionsandaccordingtothestandardpractice,possessionwastransferredwhenthekeywasleftandthetrailerparkedintheadjacentlot2.WaiverClause?Courtsaidthisappliestoinitialrepairtransactionbutnotfuturework.Wouldn’thaveappliedregardlessbecausewaiverclausesmaybeinsertedbythebaileebutwillbestrictlyconstrued(negligencemustbeexplicitlywaivedandinthiscasewaiverdidnotmentionlossbytheft).3.ContributoryNegligence?No,becausetheyactedinlinewithprovidedinstructionsTHEONUSOFPROOFINBAILMENTCLAIMS(i)Generalrule:Oncebailmentisestablishedonabalanceofprobabilities,presumptionofnegligencearises(ii)Theelementsofareverseonusclause

- Presumptionhas3components:1) Triggeringfacts-bailormustprovetheessentialfacts,includingthattheactscomplainedofoccurredduringbailment.

Noteasytodo.2) Short-cuttoproof-thefactsarethenpresumedagainstbailee3) EscapeRoute-themattersthatthebaileemustproveinordertoovercometheshiftinonus

- Topassthroughescaperoute,baileemustproveitsnegligencedidnotcausetheinjury- Doesnotneedtofullyexplainwhathappened,rathermustshow(a)thesystemtocareforthegoodswasreasonableand

uptoproperstandards,or(b)anyfailingsornegligencewerenotconnectedtotheloss- Reversingonusisappropriatesinceonlybaileeknowswhatactuallyhappenedwithgoods

SUB-BAILMENT(PUNCHV.SAVOY)SUB-BAILMENT

- Abailorhasadirectrightofactionagainstasub-baileewhere:o Bailorhasanimmediaterighttoterminatetheprinciplebailment,ando Sub-baileeacceptsgoodsknowingthattheybelongtosomeoneotherthanthesub-bailor

§ ThereisarighttosueevenwherethereisnodirectcontractualprivityBailor’sRightsagainstSub-Bailee

- Modernpositionisthatthebailordoeshaveacauseofactionagainstthesub-baileeforeitherdamageorloss,incircumstancesthatwouldgiverisetoarighttoterminatethesub-bailmentaslongastheyacceptedthegoodsrecognizingthatthebaileedoesn’thavetitle

- Basisoftheclaimnotoncontract(nocontracthere)sotheonlyoptionisthatthebailorwouldmoveagainstthesub-baileeonthebasisofthetermsofthesub-bailment

o Suggeststhetermsofthesub-bailmentisbindingonthebailor,butthisisnotthecase(Punch)

Punchv.Savoy’sJewellersLtd(SUB-BAILMENT–BAILOR’SRIGHTS)Facts:DropsoffringforrepairatSavoy’s;theysenditouttoTorontoforrepair(withoutaskingtheowner);Postalstrikeensues,sub-baileeinTorontohiresCNRapidextocouriertheringbacktoSavoy’s;Ringnevermakesit.Obtaininginsuranceforthevalueofthegoodswasatermofthecontractfortransport.

- WalkerandSavoyliableb/cdidnotpayfortheextrainsuranceanddidnotdeclarethevalueofthering.TheyTrustedanunfamiliarcarriertotransferit,withoutobtaininginstructionsfromtheowner

77

- CNRapidexbecauseitfailedtoexplainlossofringDecision:CNcouldnothidebehindthewaiverclausefortworeasons:

1. “Lostordamaged”didnotincludeemployeethefto Exemptionclauseswillbestrictlyconstruedandmustexplicitlystatetheliabilityexemptedo CNmustshowthattherewasnotheft,becauseit'sabailmentandtheonusisreversed

2. Punchneversignedtheclause(ProblematicforCNRapidex)o Butproblem:PunchcanstepintoshoesofWalkertosueCNinbailment,BUT,thenwantstosayshedidnotsigna

waiverclause,despitesteppingintoWalker’sshoeswhodidsignittoclaimagainstCN.Sheshouldbeheldtothetermsofthebailment.

Ratio:Punchsuggeststhatevenifyouhaveawaiverclause,thebailormightstillcomeafteryouandtheclausemightnotbebindingRule:Unlesstheplaintiffauthorizedthetermsofthesub-bailment,thentheplaintiffisnotboundbythem

ThePioneerContainer• Privityofcontractnotpresent.Agreementbetweenbaileeandsub-baileewouldn’tbebindingasperPunchvSavoy.

However,PrivyCouncilfoundinKthattheyconsentedtoanyterms.

CHAPTER9:CO-OWNERSHIPNote:Commonlawlovesjointtenancy.Makesiteasytodeterminewhoownsproperty.Whoisalive?Easytodeterminewhohasseisin.Tellsuswhoisresponsiblefortheincidents.Example:OdevisesGreenacre“untoandtotheuseofAllyandJackintrustforCardyandWiz”.Jackdies.Answer:Jack’sinterestisextinguished,leavingthewholeinteresttoAllythroughsurvivorship.S8LPAdoesn’tapplybecauseitisatrust.Example:OdevisesBlackacre“untoandtotheuseofAllyandJackintrustforCardyandWiz”.Cardydies.Answer:JackandAllyholdtheestateintrustforWiz,andCardy’sheirs.Example:OdevisesWhiteacre“untoandtotheuseofAandBIntrustforAandB”Adies.Answer:A’slegalinterestpassestoBthroughsurvivorship.A’sequitableinterestispassedtoA’sheirs.Bretainshisequitableinterest.Willsandsuccessionact–Ifdieatsametime,jointtenantsbecometenantsincommon.

JOINTTENANCY- Eachpartyownsthewholeoftheland(JTsareconsideredonepersoninlaw)–legalfictionwhereallofthemareonesingle

owner.- Rightofsurvivorship(“winnertakeall”scenario)

o Whenonepartydies,hisinterestisextinguishedandthesurvivor’sinterestisenlargedbythecorrespondingamount(noactualinterestispassed)

- Jointtenancyrequires:The"FourUnities":interest;title;time*;possession;ANDIntention.- Jointtenancyispresumedforpurepersonalty.- Commonlawpresumption“toAandhisheirs”is“toAandhisheirsinjointtenancy”.

FourUnities(ALLarerequiredtomakeajointtenancy)

1.Possession:rightsmustrelatetothesamepieceofproperty- Eachpossessesthewholeoftheland(hastobeequal)

2.Title:eachjointtenant'stitlemustbederivedfromthesamedocumentoroccurrence(i.e.grant)

78

3.Interest:theholdingsofeachjointtenantmustbeequalinnature,extentandduration4.Time:mustvestininterestatthesametime

o *Exceptionforwhencontingentinterestsarecreatedthroughawillordeedtouses• Idevisetomysons,whentheyturn18(canvestatdifferenttimes).

o CanvestinpossessionatdifferenttimesIntention:Evenwhereall4unitiesarepresent,JTvs.TICdependonintentionsofthegrantor.MustbeintentiontocreateJT(rightofsurvivorship)

TENANCYINCOMMON- SplitShares(norightofsurvivorship)–notionalsharesintheproperty.Upondeath,thenotionalsharesformpartoftheir

estate.- Onlyunityofpossessionismandatory- Evenwhen4unitiesarepresent,equitypresumestenancyincommoninthefollowingsituations:

o Partnershipassetso Mortgages–aburdenonyourlegaltitleo Whenmoneytopurchasepropertyisprovidedinunequalshareso Ifpossessionissharedbyindividualspursuingseparatecommercialenterprises

- Atcommonlawà JointTenancyispresumed;however,theslightestindicationthatpropertywasmeanttobeheldincommonissufficientrebuttal

- InAlbertaà TenancyinCommonispresumedtobecreatedunlessotherwisestated(LPA,s.8).o Thisstatutorypresumptiondoesnotapplyfortransfersoflandtoexecutorsortrusteeso Italsodoesn’tapplytopersonalty.Onlytointerestsinland.

Differingco-ownershipatlegalandequitytitle:Itispossibleforpartiestoholdlegaltitletoaparceloflandinoneformofco-ownership,whileholdingequitabletitletothesameparceloflandinanotherformofco-ownership.

- O:“UntotoandtouseofAandB,intrustforAandB”-AandBarejointtenantsinlaw,andtenantsincommoninequity- IfBdiesfirst,thenAassumesfulllegaltitlebysurvivorship–B’sequitableinterest,beingheldincommon,passestoB’s

estate,leavingAtoholdlegaltitleasatrusteefortheequitableowners:B’sestateandA.WaysaTenancyinCommoniscreated:

- ExpressCreation,pursuanttoStatutoryPresumption,resultingfrom“failed”or“imperfect”tenancies(lackofunities),byOperationofLaw(ex.Intestacy–persondieswithnospousebutmultiplechildren)

- ThroughactsorwordsofseveranceMatrimonialPropertyActS.36

- Presumesjointtenancyinmarriageunlessprovenotherwisewhenlegaltitleheldinjoint

SEVERANCEOnustodemonstratethattherehasbeenaseveranceliesonthepartycontendingit(Sorenson).WordsofSeverance(usedtodetermineinitialco-ownershipplan)

- Atcommonlaw:“Equally”,“Shareandsharealike”,“Toeach”,“Amongst”,“Between”,“Respectively”=TenantsinCommon

- E.g.“ToAandBequally”–sothatifAdied,thepropertyisownedbyBandA’sheirsandviceversa.3TYPESOFSEVERANCEOFJOINTTENANCY

1. UnilateralConductthatresultsinthedestructionofanyofthe4unitieso Unilateralseveranceunderlegislation–LPA12(1)(d)

§ AJointTenantcanconveytohimself,becomingaTIC§ MustgivenoticetotheotherJTfirst–LPAS.65

o Ex.transferofanequitableinterestseverstheequitable“title”unity(Sorensen)

79

§ A,B,Choldtitlejointly;Cconveystohimself;A&Bhold2/3asjointtenants;Cholds1/3assolitarytenantincommon–unityoftitlehasbeennegatedforC.CacquiresinterestatadifferentTIME,andUNITY.

2. MutualAgreement(EquityOnly)o Partieshavemutuallyagreedtoseverbuthavenotdestroyedthe4Unities,doesn’tseveratcommonlaw,but

equitywillimposeseveranceasameansofavoidingofimpositionofsurvivorshipruleonco-ownerswhomightnothavebeenawareofsurvivorship

o Onlyoperatesinequity,asequityregardsasdonewhatoughttohavebeendone§ Ex.saledoesnotresultinseverance,butsharingproceedsdoesinequity§ Jointtenantsbothdevisepropertyintheirwillsseparately–equitywillseverJT

3. “CourseofDealing”(EquityOnly)o Negotiationsfallingshortofmutualagreementorabindingcontractcanstillbesufficienttocreateseveranceof

jointtenancy(atequity)o Negotiationsaremoredemonstrativeofintentiontoseverinmatrimonialdisputesordivorces(Havlikv

Whitehouse)o Thesenegotiationsmustbesufficienttodemonstratethatbothpartiesmutuallytreatedthepropertyas

constitutingatenancyincommon

Sorensenv.Sorensen(severanceofajointtenancythroughcreationofatrust)–Thiswaspoorlydecided.Shereallyhadalifeestate.Hehadareversion.Theinterestswerenotthesame.Thejointtenancywasbroken.Facts:Marriedcouple.Husbandtriestoassertsurvivorshipinthefamilyhome.Mrs.Sorensenpriortodeathdeclaresherselfastrusteeforherson.Equitableinterestgoestoherson(seversjointtenancyàequitabletitlenowsharedastenantsincommon);fatherstillhassolelegaltitle.Otherfacts.Mrs.Sorensonsuesforpartition.Passesbeforetrial.Husbandsuesforcaveatsonallofthepropertyasajointtenant.Separationagreementwasnotenough,becauseneitherpartyviewedthatasseveringthetenancy.Chargeormortgagedoesnotoperateasatransferoftheestate.Thewife’swill?Youcannot,bywill,disposeofassetsthatdonotformpartofyourestate.Theactionofpartitioncommencedbythewife?Leasedoesnotseverthetenancy.LPAS19.Iftheinterestinlandthatissubjectofanorderisheldinjointtenancy,theorderonbeinggrantedseversthejointtenancy.Here,wifedied.Consequently,couldn’tseverwiththat.Metro-matic:JustbecauseyoutakeextraprecautionsdoesNOTmeantheydidn’tintendsomethingtobesufficient.AttemptedMethodsofSeveranceinSorensenSeparationagreement-NotsufficientforseveranceviamutualagreementmethodofseveranceActionforpartition-Wouldhavebeenvalidifcompletedandorderedbythecourtbeforeshedied(LPAs.19)GiftMortisCausa-GiftsofrealpropertyinCanadanotpermittedimpendingdeath.ViaWill–RightofSurvivorshiptrumpswills.Whataboutchargesonproperty?InAB-mortgagescreateanencumbranceonyourtitle(butdoesn’tseverJT).Incommonlawamortgagecouldsevertitle.Lease-Alease,succeedingthelifeofthetenant,woulddestroyoneoftheunitiesàcreatingaseverancebecausetherightofsurvivorshipdoesnotsupersedetheleaseholdinterest.But,aleaseforlifedoesnotdisrupttheunities.

- Kaplinsky:leaseforlifeiseffectivelyalifeestate,whichbreakstheunityofinterest,causingaseveranceDeclarationofTrust–thisonlyseveredtheequitabletitle-Intentiontoseverjointtenancywithoutfurtheractiondoesnotseverthejointtenancyoflegaltitle,unlessthereiscommunication&acceptancebytheotherpartyIntervivosgiftoftitle:noseveranceatcommonlaw.Recall:anytimeagiftismade,equitypresumesthatthegiftorintendedtokeepthebeneficialinterest.Thismustberebuttedbytheevidence.UNLESSthegiftisparenttoaminorchild(presumptionofadvancement),OTHERWISEequitypresumesagiftwasNOTintended

- Sontakesgiftbecauseofthepresumptionofadvancement

80

RESOLVINGCO-OWNERSHIPDISPUTES- Evenafterseverance,theco-ownersonlylosetherightofsurvivorship.Eachstillhastherighttopossessionofthewhole

property.Thisoftenresultsinissuesfortheparties-howtoresolvetheseissues?OldRule:Ifonepersoninaconcurrentownershipsituationleavesforanumberofyears,thecommonlawpositionisthathehasnorightsshouldhereturn.Thisapplieseveniftheonewhostayed,decidedtoleaseitorearnedprofitfromtheland.StatuteofAnne(1705)–appliestojointtenantsortenantsincommon

- Co-ownerisliabletotheotherco-ownerforrentingtheproperty,butnotliablefromhis/herownuseofthepropertyorsoleoccupation

o Ifyougrowcropsàyoukeepalltheprofits,justasyouassumeallrisko Ifyoutakeatenantàrentisdividedbetweentheco-ownersàLPAs.17(2)(c)

CommonLawActionsWaste:unreasonableuseofpropertybyonetenantisactionableforwaste(onlyequitablewaste)

- Unlikealifetenantoralessee,aco-tenantinfeesimplemayusethepropertyinthesamemanneraswouldanownerwhodidnotsharetitlewithco-owners,subjectonlytoadutytoactreasonably(notmaliciously,notdestructively,etc)

- SuefordamagestorecoverOuster:liabilityisincurredbyaco-ownerifhe/sheexcludestheotherco-ownerfromusingtheproperty

- Also,liableifexcludedbyforceorbythreatsthatmakeitintolerablefortheothertoremaino Domesticviolence,etc.(notjustplayingloudmusicatnight)

- Expandedinterpretationifbetweenspouses(ie.makeitdifficulttolivethere)- NowgovernedbyFamilyLaw- Sueforoccupationrentàotherpartypaysyoutorentyourshareoftheproperty

AdversePossessionofJointTenants:Generallynoadversepossessionasyoucannotbeadverselypossessingwhatyoualreadyownandhavetitleto.ModernStatutoryRemediesLAWOFPROPERTYACTS.15(2):PartitionorSale-Co-ownermayapplytocourtforterminationofco-ownership(Alsorequiressubdivisionapprovalfor15.2(a)

- Courtshallchooseoneof3optionsA. Physicaldivisionofallorpartoftheland(partition).B. Saleofpartoralloftheinterestanddistributionofproceeds.C. Saleofpartoralloftheinteresttotheotherco-owner(s).

S.17:Accounting,Contribution,andAdjustment- Courtmaydirectanadjustmenttobemadeandcompensationbepaidforanunequaldivisionoftheland- Considerations(courtcantakeothersintoaccount):

o Exclusionfromlando Statusofco-owner:tenant,bailiff,oragentfortheotherco-ownero Ifoneco-ownerreceivesmorethantheirjustsharefromathirdparty

§ Leasefrommineralrights,rentingtoatenant,creatingahotel,etc.§ (OKifyouworkthelandyourselfthough)

o Wasteo Improvementsorcapitalpaymentsthatincreasedvalueo Compensationfornon-capitalexpensesspent

§ Ifyouclaimnon-capitalexpenses,youneedtoberequiredtopayfairoccupationrentS.19:Orderseversjointtenancy:AssoonascourtmakesoneofthreedecisionsrightofsurvivorshipisextinguishedS.21:Discretiontostaypartition/saleofmatrimonialhome

- Courtcandeferadecision,notwithstandingsection15(2),todeferonmattersgoingtomatrimonialhome

81

o Letfamilylawcourtsmakeanorder,andoncethatissettled,wecanorderpartitionandsaleVerhulstEstatevDenisik–APinalbertaforJT/TICisalmostimpossible.Wouldhavetorisetothelevelofouster,essentially.Mustbeactiveexclusion.NoousterinVvD.Noabandonment.Mereindifference.Nostatutoryarrangementforadult-interdependentparties.Canonlyshowunjustenrichment.Deprivation+Benefitw/absenceofjuristicreason.Inordertogetnon-matrimonialrealproperty,mustshowthattherewasa“jointfamilyventure”.Bill28–getsridofthematrimonialpropertyactinJanuary2020.ChangetoFamilypropertyAct2020.Includesadultinterdependentpartners.Assetspriortomarriagebutwhilelivingtogetherincommonlawwillbesubjecttoequitabledivision.

CHAPTER10:SERVITUDESINTRODUCTIONServitude:rightofuseoverpropertythatbelongstoanother.Servitudescanbeattachedto,andpasswith,atransferofrealty.FunctiontoimproveutilityofthelandwhilenotoverburdeningtheST.Example:Easement.Easement:anagreementbetweentwopropertyownersthatresultsinaprivilegewithoutprofitannexedtoandtoutilizethelandofasubservienttenementortopreventtheSTfromutilizinghislandinaparticularmannerfortheadvantageofthedominanttenement.IncorporealHereditament:generally,anintangiblerightinland,suchasaneasementwhichisnon-possessoryEasementversusLicense:

- Licensetodosomethingmightbetransformedinsomecircumstancesintoaproprietaryinterestinthenatureofaneasement

o Privilegetogothroughtheland(license)maysatisfytheconditionofeasementsandbecomeproprietaryinthatabuyerwouldbeentitledorburdenedbytheright

FOURESSENTIALELEMENTSOFANEASEMENTEllenboroughParkWastherightthatwasgrantedamerelicense,oraneasementthatcontinuesonwiththeland?

1. Mustconnectadominanttenement(whichenjoysthebenefit)andservienttenement(whichisburdened)a. Ifonlyapersonaladvantage,itisalicense.Mustbesomeconnectionbetweentheconcessionandthevalueof

thelandi. Policyunderlying–easementasopposedtolicensereducesthevalueoftheland.Onlycontinuesinsofar

asvalueisgainedbytheotherlandb. EasementsmustbeconnectedtoaDT,butnotnecessarilyadjacent.

i. Don’tneedtobecontiguous,butmustbecloseenoughforsomebenefittobegainedii. Can’tholdaneasement“ingross”-meaning“upintheair”,aneasementnotconnectedtoanyparcelof

land1. Valueconcerns2. Informationconcerns3. Re-negotiationconcerns

c. LandTitlesActs.69(3)-onregistration,allowgranteetouselandwithtermsofgrantnotwithstandingthebenefitoftherightisnotannexedtoanylandofthegrantee.

i. Allowsmunicipalitiesandutilitycompaniestohaveeasementsoverpropertydespitenotowningpropertyconnectedtoit

2. Easementmustaccommodatethedominanttenement

82

a. TestiswhethertherightmakestheDTabetterandmoreconvenientpropertyi. Ellenborough–therighttousetheparkmakesthosehousesbetter&moreconvenient

b. Rightmustbereasonablynecessaryforenjoymentoftheland,notmerelyconferanadvantagec. “Accommodation”requirementofreasonableproximitybetweendominantandservienttracts

i. Theyneednotbeadjacent,closenessdependsmostlyontypeofrightinvolvedd. HillvTupper–ownerofacanalleaseslandonthebanktotheplaintiff.Partoftheleaseincludes“thesoleand

exclusiverighttoputpleasureboatsonthewater.”Thisisalicenseandnotaneasement.Easementmustrelatetoanattributeofownershipthat’snormallyassociatedwithland,thisrightisnotconnectedwiththebetterenjoymentofthelanditself

i. Reasons:1. Iftryingtocreateanewpropertyright-limitedbynumerusclausus2. Needtoconsidertherighttoaccommodatebusinessandnottheland3. Propertylawshouldpromotecompetition

e. Manyrightscanbesubjecttoaneasement,e.g.therighttoparkonsomeone’slandi. Positiveeasementsii. Negativeeasements

3. Dominantandservienttenementsmustbeownedbydifferentpersons

a. BUT:LandTitlesAct-s.68-Owneroflandmaygranthimselfaneasementorrestrictivecovenantforbenefitsoflandandagainstthelandtheownerowns.EasementinthiscaseISNOTMERGED.

i. Usefulfordeveloperstogiveallsubdivisionownerstherighttoanalleypriortoindividualsaleofthelotsb. IfeasementexistsoverST,andownerofDTpurchasestheservientlands,theeasementmerges.(thisisnot

anticipatedbys.68ofLandTitlesAct)c. LandTitlesActss68-69alsomodifythecommonlaw:

i. Oneallowsmunicipalities,utilitycompaniestoowneasementsthatarenotpertinenttoadominanttenement

ii. Theotherisimportantforresidentialdevelopment,allowseasementsandcovenantstobeinsertedbyonedeveloperoverdifferentpartsoftheprojectwhilethedeveloperisstilltheownerofallthelandssothedevelopercanselllotstobuyersalreadyburdenedorbenefitfromtheseeasement/tenements

4. Easementmustbecapableofformingthesubject-matterofagrant

a. Maintainsthefictionthatalleasementsoriginateingrants.Mustbecapableoftransferringinagrant.b. Easementmustbesufficientlycertainastoberecognizedaspropertyright.Can’tbetoobroadortoovague.c. Otherrules:mustbeacapablegrantorandgrantee,grantcannotrequireservientownertospendmoney(apart

fromfencingeasement),cannotbeforrecreationoramusement,andcannotconferrightofpossessionorcontrolofservientlandscontrarytopossessoryrightsofservientowner.

d. Requirementofnon-possessoryposessomeproblemsbutismeanttopreventpossessoryrightsthatcouldsterilizetheservientlands.Betterwaymaybetophrasesitas“substantialinterference”withservientlandisnotallowed

e. Novelclaims,evenonethatmeetstheaboverequirements,maynotsucceed(newpositiveeasementsmoreeasilyrecognizedthannegative)

EasementsandPossession:ThePipelineExample

- Typically,easementscannotincluderightsofjointoccupationthatsubstantiallydeprivestheservienttenementofproprietorship.

- Pipelines,however,haveapermanentphysicalpresencethatpreventstheservientownerfromusingthelandanywaythattheydesire

o Grantorispreventedfromdisturbingtopsoil(nocultivation)orerectingworksonthestripsofright-of-way–nevertheless,pipelinesareavalidformofeasementinAlberta

o Atcommonlaw,thepipelineunderKaplinsky’sgaragewouldnotbeaneasementNegativeEasements–Closedlist.Canpreventtheowneroftheservienttenantfromactinginamannerinconsistentwiththeeasements.

- Righttolight.- Righttolateralsupport.- Righttoventilation.- Righttocontinuetoreceivewaterfromanartificialstream.

83

CREATIONOFEASEMENTSExpressGrantandReservation

- Shouldidentifythedominanttenement,theservienttenement,thenatureandscopeoftheeasement,thetimeperiodforwhichtheeasementcontinues,andanyrightsandresponsibilitiesofeitherpartywithrespecttotheeasement.

- Expressreservation:grantorretainsarightofaccessoverthelandheisselling.- Anyambiguityisinterpretedinfavourofthegrantee- Requiresclearlanguage- Grantorispresumednottoderogatefromagrant

ImpliedGrantandReservation–Notautomaticallyimplied.Mustbeareasonforthemtobeapplied.i.EasementofNecessity:Internallimitsontheeasementgranted.MustbewhatwasNECESSARYatthetime.Iewon’tallowNelsontoclaimfulluseovertheroadandwhatnot.

- Theseariseoutofpublicpolicytoensurethatalllandremainsaccessibleandusable,orfromtheimpliedintentionsoftheparties(Nelson)

- IfdominantlandsaresoldoffsuchthatDTisotherwiselandlockedatthetimeoftransfer,aneasementofnecessityofaccesswillariseinfavourofthelandlockedland(almostgrantedinNelsonv1153696Alberta).

o Caseturnedontheorderinwhichthelandsweresubdivided.Toshowaneasementofnecessity,youmustbeabletoshowwhoshouldbetheservienttenement.Cannotprovewhoistheservienttenement,soNelsonloses.

o Nodedicationofahighwayherebecausenoclearintenttodedicate§ Intentmustbeapparent–givingupALLproprietaryrightsinthehighway,unlikeaneasement.§ LandunderaleasewillRARELYbededicated,ifever.Can’trelinquishpropertyinterestyou’reofwhich

you’renotinpossession,andtheintentmustbeoftheownerinfeesimple.o PossiblehostilitytoShalomPark.

- Thisformofeasementisbasedonaruleofconstruction,soityieldstocontraryintention.Here,explicitlanguageisusuallyrequiredbeforethisimpliedrightwillbeexcluded.

- Ifanothermeansofaccessisavailable,thisrightissometimesdenied.- Canalsoariseastheresultofanimpliedreservation:whereservientlandsaresold,land-lockingthedominanttenement

i.IntendedEasements:

- Easementswillsometimesarisegiveeffecttothecommonintentionoftheparties,consideringthepurposesforwhichthelandhasbeengrantedorretained

- Eg.Wongv.Beaumont-leasedabasementforarestaurant–originaltenantleasedthebasementforarestaurant–evenbeforetheleasewasexecuted,leaseesignedacovenantthatdealtwiththepreventionofodours-intendedeasementforpropertyventilationwasfoundbecausewithoutitthepremiseswouldnotmeetpublichealthcodesnorthetermsofthelease.Analogoustolandlockedproperties.Musthavebeentheintentionofthepartiestoallowsuchaducttobebuilt.

- Denning:aneasementwasnecessarygiventhepurposeofthelease.Theinterestthetenantacquiresisnogoodunlessthetenanthastherighttorunthatduct

- Needtoaskiftheeasementarisesfromnecessity,orfromtheimpliedintentionsofthepartiesiii.RuleinWheeldonvBurrows(Consumerprotectioneasement)–NOTonexam

- Ifaneasementrunsbetweentwopropertiesofthebuyer,itservesasaquasi-easementandbecomesaneasementwhenyoubuytheland(implied,eventhoughnotmadeexpressly)

- Requiresconsiderationofhowaparceloflandwasusedbeforeitwasdividedintoseparateparcelsunderseparateownership.Whilethepropertywasasingleparcel,theownermayhaveestablishedlanesknownasquasi-easements.Whenthepropertyisdividedintoseparateparcels,thesequasi-easementsmaybecomeactualeasementsbyimplicationinthegrant.

- Requiresthatthequasi-easementsmeet3criteria:(easements,butnotbebecausethere’sonlyoneowner)1. Thequasi-easementmusthavebeeninuseatthetimeofthegrant.2. Existenceofthequasi-easementmusthavebeencontinuousandapparent.

§ Mustbesomeobservablephysicalevidenceofitsexistence§ Ex.drainpipe,well-wornpathorroad

3. Thequasi-easementmustbenecessaryforthereasonableenjoymentoftheproperty.- Note:OperatesONLYinfavourofthegrantee.Thisruleisgenerallynotapplicableforimpliedreservationsbecausethe

grantoroflandsoughttohavebargainedfortheeasementincontention.

SW71901

SE71901

NW61897

NE6???

84

iv.Estoppel–Claimantmustestablishthattherewassomethingintheiruseoftheirneighbour’slandforaccesstotheirownthatwouldmakeitunconscionablefortheirneighbourtonowinsistonhisorherlegalrighttodenythataccess.Ifarepresentationismadetotheprospectivepurchaserofthelandthatcertainlaneswillbesetasidefortheuseofthelandofferedforsale,andonthisrepresentationthelandispurchased,thegrantorisestoppedfrompreventingthegranteefromusingthelaneastherightofwayv.Statutory

- InAlberta’scondominiumlegislation,aneasementlateralsupportisimpliedinfavourofeveryunitcapableofenjoyingtheserights.

- Thelegislationalsocreateseasementsovercommonareas,andrightofwaysofwater,sewage,draining,gas,electricity,garbage,artificiallyheatedandcooledair,telephone,andtelevisionservices.

- SurfaceRightsAct–formunicipalities,companiesvi.Prescription

- NolongerpossibleinAlberta;LawofPropertyAct-s.69(3)- Lawpretendsaneasementwasgrantedatsometimeinthepast,asevidencedbylong,uninterrupteduse.Doctrine

protectsrelianceon,andenjoymentof,long-heldandunchallengedrights.- Inthepast,hasincludedthingslikerighttopreventneighbourfromerectinglargestructureduetouninterruptedlight

reachingyourwindowfor20years.EASEMENTSBYOPERATIONOFLAW

- Ramblingrights- Utilityrightsoflaw- Condominiumlaw

TERMINATIONOFEASEMENTS

1. NaturalterminationàDominanttenementintendedtoabandonorsurrendertheeasement.o Conditionprecedent.

2. Expressrelease3. Impliedrelease/abandonment(CostavJenikas)

o E.g.ifgov’topensupatunnelorsomethingtotheland,thenit’simpliedthatthedominantnolongerneedsaneasement(sonolongeroutofnecessity).

4. Proprietaryestoppel;e.g.Personsaystheynolongerneedtheeasementsotheservienttenementownerstartsputtingmoneyinto.Ex-dominanttenementcan’tgobackontheirword.

5. Foreasementsofnecessity,wheneasementsnolongernecessary?

SCOPEOFEASEMENTSGeneralPrinciples

- Theprimeconsiderationisthepurposeoftheoriginalgrant;considersfactorssuchas:physicalnatureofservientlands,extenttowhichanexpansionwouldthrottleactivityontheservienttenement

- Generally,granteecannotincreasetheburdenontheservientlandsbeyondtherightsinitiallyconveyed.o BUT,ifitwascontemplatedorcanbeimpliedthattheeasement’susecouldchangeovertime,thegranteecan

increasetheburdenàLaurievWinch- Courtsconsiderswordingofthegrantandexternalcircumstances

Lauriev.Winch-1953SCRDominanttenementcanbeinferredfromthecircumstances.Facts:Farmland(DT)wassubdividedintoresidentiallots.Theoriginaleasementgrantedwasaperpetualright-of-wayoverLot#33,whichwassplitintoalargenumberofeasements,onebeingattachedtoeachnewlot.Theeasementwasalsowidened.Onepartynowseekstopreventtheothersfromgainingaccesstotheeasement,oralternatively,limitingtheeasementtotheoriginalscope.Issues:(1)whatisthedominanttenement,(2)whatistheSCOPEoftheeasement?Reasons:

85

o Whilethereisnomentionofdominanttenementingrant,words“overlot33”canbegivenmeaningthroughintroductionofextrinsicevidencetoidentifytheDTascontemplatedbytheparties–inthiscase–thefarmwastheintendeddominanttenement.

o Nothinginthelanguageoftheeasementtorestrictitsscopeaswasarguedbytheappellanto Attimeofthegrant,whatwascontemplatedbytheparties?o Consideringtheotherlandhadalreadybeensubdividedtothewestoflot33,courtholdsthattheideaoffuture

subdivisionisbuiltintotheoriginalgrantbecausethelandeastoflot33mightbesubdividedtoo.o So,intentionofpartiesdoesn’trestricteasementtoitstraditionaluse.o Lot17wasalreadyitselfsubjecttoaneasement.

Note:

- Aneasementattachedtoeverypartofthedominanttenement- Needtoaskwhichtenementbenefitstodeterminewhichisthedominanttenement

MaldenFarmsv.Nicholson-1956OntCAFacts:Originaleasementalloweda“freeuninterruptedrightofway”forprivateuseofaducksanctuary.Sometimelater,theowneroftheright-of-wayopensthegatesasapublicusearearesultinginhundredsusingtheeasement.Decision:Feeisnotburdenedasoriginallycontemplated.Theoriginalscopedidnotcontemplatepublicuseoftheeasement,itwasmeanttopreservetheducksanctuary.Originaluseoftheeasementisputbackinplace.Theuseoftheeasementisnowfundamentallydifferentthantheoriginalintention.DifferencesbetweenthiscaseandLaurie:1)Fundamentalchangeinthescopeoftheactivity,notjustmorepeople,butfundamentallydifferent.2)Inthiscase,theeasementisforaspecificpurpose,whileinLauriethegrantusedmuchbroaderlanguage3)Heretherightofwaytothesanctuarywasstrictlycontrolledandexclusiveinuse.Theownersofthebeachpropertywereputonnoticetomaintainrightstothegatessoitwasn’tcontemplatedthattherightofwaywouldbeusedforthiskindofuse

TheRuleinHarrisvFlower- AneasementovertheservientlandwhichisappurtenanttoLotAmaynotbeusedbytheownerofthedominanttenement

tobenefitanotherproperty,LotBo Thismeans:colourableuseoftheright-of-wayappurtenanttoLotAtobenefitLotBisprohibited

- BUTanancillaryuseoftheeasementtobenefitlotBistolerable

OTHERSERVITUDESANDSERVITUDE-TYPERIGHTS

Profitsaprendre:- Arighttomakesomeuseofthesoilofanother,suchasarighttominemetals,anditcarrieswithittherightofentry- Thisisanon-possessoryinterest,andcanbeaninterestinland- Theinterestconsistsoftherighttoremovenaturalresourcesfromthelandofanother- Maybeappurtenanttoadominanttenementorheldingross

o Thisdependsonthegranto E.g.oilandgascompaniesusuallyholdingrossanddon’thaveadominanttenement

- Aprofitincludesbydefaulttherighttoenterthelando ButrecalltheSurfaceRightsAct–iftheprofitinquestionismineralsoraccessisrequiredforenergy,theActsays

thatanoperatorneverhasbydefaultaccesstoenter.Needtonegotiateforsurfacerights.Ifthisfailsthenunders12oftheActneedtoappearbeforetheSurfaceRightsBoardtogetthisaccess

- Typically,amineralorworking“lease”isaprofito Notalease–aleaseisapossessoryinterest.Whatisactuallygivenisaprofitaprendre

- Statusofthingsremovedfromthelando E.g.diamonds–youownifyouhavethoserightsinitiallyo Whentheyareinsitutheyareyourpropertyo Whentheyareseveredthentheyarethecompaniesprofit–onlychangehandswhenseveredfromtheland

86

Eg.Energyoperator,anotherpartyhasmineralrightsundertheland.Youpaythemfortherighttoworktheminerals.Whenthatrightismadetolastforaterm,aworkinginterestoramineralleasewillbecreated,butthetechnicaltermiscalledaprofitsaprendre.

- Unlikeeasements,theycanbeheldingross.- Theyareextinguishedbyaunityofseisin–iftheholdereither:

o Releasesitinfavouroftheownerofthelandinwhichtheprofitsubsists;oro Becomestheownerofthelandinwhichaprofitsubsists

Tenercase- BCtransferredownershipofmineralsinanareathatislaterturnedintoapark.BCenactslegislationthatbasicallybars

ownersfromminingtheminerals.- WilsonJ:compensationbecauserightinthenatureofaprofitaprendrewastakenbythegovernment.

Kaplinsky:incorrectà Pownsthemineralssoitcan’thaveaprofitaprendreinsomethingthatitalreadyownsRhubarbonKaplisnky’spropertycanbeaprofitsaprendre–canNOTbeaneasement–forhisneighbour–canbeannexedtoneighbour,ORtoneighbour’sproperty.Ifyouownmineralrights,youmustpayseparatesumtogogetoil/minerals.E.g.paysurfaceholder

DynexPetroleumvBMOSCC2002OverridingRoyaltiesarevalidpropertyinterestsdespitecommonlaw.Ratio:Anoverridingroyaltycanbeaproprietaryinterestinland.TheORRhastobecarvedoutofsomeinterestinland(possessoryorotherwise)Facts:Dynexisbankrupt.BMOisasecuredcreditorsoclaimsfirstdibsonDynex’sresources.SomeofDynex’ssuppliershadoverridingroyaltyinterestsandregisteredintheLandTitlesOffice.BMOarguesthatthisprofitaprendreisnotapropertyinterestbecauseitisderivedfromanincorporealhereditament.Enchantoffersaserviceforanoverridingroyaltyinterestinanoil+gaslease–profitsaprendre.Ifleaseisprofitable,enchantgets2%.Mineralleases=profitsaprendre.Profitsareanincorporealhereditament.Non-possessory–cannotbeaninterestintheland.Decision:Newrule–courtwillrecognizethatanoverridingroyaltyinterestisavalidpropertyinterestandsothecaveatisvalid,recognizingthisnewruleisnecessarygiventherealitiesoftheoil&gassectorinAlberta.OverridinginterestmaybecomeaninterestinlandIFthelanguageissufficientlyprecisetodemonstratethatitisaninterestinland,notacontractualinterest.Mustpiggybackoffanotherinterestinland,ietheprofit.Promisehereistogetmoneyoutofaspecificprofit.Thefollowingconditionsmustbemet:

1. Thelanguageusedindescribingtheinterestissufficientlyprecisetoshowthatthepartiesintendedtheroyaltytobeagrantofaninterestinland(propertyright),andnotmerelyacontractualright

2. Theinterestoutofwhichtheroyaltyiscarvedhastobeaninterestinland(doesn’thavetobepossessory,butitmustbeaninterestinlandandaprofitaprendreisaninterestinland)

Mineralrightsareownedbysomecompany,Dynexhasleasedtherightsfromtheseparties–oneoftheassetsupforgrabsinbankruptcy.MUSTregistertheprofit–onlyboundbyinterestsregisteredonthetitle–exceptionisaneasementofnecessity.

- Mustregistertheinterestforittobebindingforsomeoneelse.Definitions:

• Royalty:anunencumberedshareorfractionalinterestinthegrossproductionofaworkinginterest• Overridingroyalty:aroyaltygrantednormallybytheownerofaworkinginteresttoathirdpartyinexchangefor

considerationwhichcouldincludemoneyorservices(e.g.drilling)VARIOUSOTHERNOTESONSERVITUDESEncroachments:aformofeasement.Usefulforeliminatingthepossibilityofadversepossession.Musthavesomethingalongthelinesof“shallbebindingupontheCityandOwner,theirsuccessorsandassignsrespectively”otherwiseitisjustalicense.

87

Note:AtcommonlawàoperatorofoilandgasinAlbertawouldgetanautomaticaccesswithaprofit,butstatutehaschangedthis.Theymustgetaseparateagreementofaccessfromthelandowner.TheRuleinHarrisvFlower:ServientlandissubjecttoeasementforaccesstolotA,butservientlandcan’tbeusedtoaccesslotBnextdoor.Acolourableuseoftheright-of-waytoLotAinordertoaccessLotBisprohibited.Differentfromfarmingbecausethedominanttenementdoesn’tchangeinWinch(justexpandstomorepeople).

COVENANTSRUNNINGWITHPROPERTYIfyouwantacovenanttorun,youwantanINJUNCTION,notdamages.Generallywillgothroughequity–onlyplacewhereburdenrunswiththeland.Problemwithrestrictivedevelopments–can’tjustgrantsomeonesomethingandsaymustnotuseitinA/B/Cways.Violatesruleagainstperpetuities.Differencebetweeneasement/covenant

- Covenantsprincipallyaffectservientlandwhileeasementsonlydotangentially- Covenantsaremoredifficulttoenforceagainstsuccessorsintitlethaneasements- Duetothecourt’sreluctancetorecognizenewnegativeeasements,covenantsarepotentiallymuchwiderinscopethan

easementsBackground:

- Whenafreeholdcovenantissuccessfullyenteredinto,itrunswiththeland- Covenantsprovidealegalmechanismforensuringthatcontractualpromisesconcerningtheuseoflandarebindingon

successorsintitleofthecontractingparty- Covenantsareimportantinlargescaleresidentialprojects–e.g.promisebuyersthatamenitiesareprotectedinthefuture,

createprivatelandusecontrols

E.g.CovenantormakesacovenanttotheCovenantee.XandYaresuccessorstotheirrespectivetitles- Ymustbeentitledtothebenefitofthecovenant.Xmustbeboundbytheburdenofthecovenant.Thesubjectmatterof

thecovenantisenforceable(e.g.underpublicpolicy)TERMINOLOGY(i)Covenant-avalidcontractualundertakingmadebyacovenantorinfavorofacovanentee

(ii)Covenantor(or)-assumestheburdenofthepromise–makesthepromise(underseal)

(iii)Covenantee(ee)-assumesthebenefitofthepromise–hasapromisemadetothem(underseal)

(iv)Burdenedland-Servienttenementisthelandburdened

(v)Benefitedland-Dominanttenementisthelandbenefited

(vi)Annexation-benefitisannexedsoitwillautomaticallyrunwiththebenefittedland

(vii)Express(contractual)assignment-benefitmaybeexpresslyassignedintheabsenceofannexation.

(viii)Assigneeofthecovenantor-actionenabledwhen(i)covenanttouchesandconcernsthedominantland

andwastakenforitsbenefit,(ii)theassignmentoccurscontemporaneouslywiththetransferofthedominant

lands,and(iii)landisascertainable,atleastbyextrinsicevidence.

(ix)Assigneeofthecovenantee(ee')-Benefitisallowedtobeassigned

- Thebenefitofacovenantcanrunatlawandinequity- Theburdenofa(restrictive)covenantcanruninequitybutneverinlaw

88

COVENANTSATLAW

- Relativelyunimportantbecauseofthelaw’sgeneralapproachtocontracts–acontractualpromiseisonlyenforceableagainstthosewhomadeit,andtheremedyforbreachisdamages

o Ifthecovenantorbrokehispromisetothecovenantee,thenthecovenanteewouldbeentitledtoenforcethecontractbydamagesbecausethelawdoesn’tenforcecontractsanyotherway

- Forfreeholdcovenants,covenanteeswillwanttoenforcethecovenantwithaninjunction- AtCL,theburdenneverrunsatlaw

o Noonebutthecovenantorcanbesuedonthecovenant- Permittingotherwisecould:(KeppellvBailey)

o (1)createnewmodesofoccupyingandenjoyingland(contrarytonumerousclauses)–e.g.newformofrealpropertyinterest

o (2)overburdenlandandmakeitunmarketable§ Valueandinformationconcerns§ Encumberlandtothepointofreducingalienability§ Barsubsequentbuyersfromascertainwhatbindstheirland

Therunningofthebenefitatlaw1. Thebenefitofacovenantisanassignablechoseinaction(JudicatureAct,s20)

a. Thislegislationexplainswhyacollectionagencymayenforceadebttosomeotherparty2. Successorstothecovenanteemaysuethecovenantorfordamagesif:

a. Originalcovenanteeheldalegalestateinbenefittingtheland;b. Successorholdsthesamelegalestate;c. Thebenefitwasintendedtorunwiththeland;ANDd. Thecovenanttouchesandconcernstheland

SmithandRiverDouglas:Worknotdonecompetently.Yearslatertheriverburst,andtheplaintiff(whowasasuccessorofoneoftheoriginalowners)suedonthecontract.Denningheldthecovenantcouldrun.

COVENANTSINEQUITY

Tulkv.MoxhayNegativecovenants–rulethatagoodfaithpurchaserforvaluewillnotbeboundbyacovenantifhehadnonoticeofitFacts:PlaintiffpurchasedanareainLeicesterSquarewithacovenantthatrequiresupkeepofthesquareandtomaintainitasagarden.Purchaserknewaboutthecovenantattimeofpurchase,hehadbeengivennotice,butwantedtoviolateitanyways.Decision:Overrulestheearliercaselawandsaysthatfromnowon,wewillenforcecovenantsinequity(theburdenwillrun–plaintiffcannotdeveloptheland.)Cites:KeppellvBailey–bestknownfornumerusclausus–notypeofestatewhichissubjecttoalimitationtotransportgoodsforaparticularquarry.Possiblealternativeexplanationsforthisdecision:unjustenrichment,cleanhandsdoctrine(unconscionabletoallowpartytobuywithknowledgeoftheburdenandsimplyactagainstthatburden),ornemodat–gaveawayastickinthebundle,can’tgiveitaway.GeneralrequirementsRequirementsfortheRunningoftheBurdeninEquity

1. Covenantmustberestrictivea. Negativeinsubstance–compliancemustbepossiblebydoingNOTHING.Ie.Cannotimposepositiveduties.b. Covenantisjudgedbyitssubstance,notitsform,soacovenanttousepropertyonlyforresidentialpurposesisa

restrictivecovenant(doesn’tcompel,justmeansyoucan’tusethepropertyforanyotheruse)

2. Burdenmusthavebeenintendedtorunwiththecovenantor’slandassufficientlydescribedinthecovenant.Courtswillotherwisepresumeagainstafindingofarestrictivecovenant

3. Covenantmustbetakenforthebenefitofthelandofthecovenantee(LondonCityCouncilvAllen)a. Easilyascertainablefromthedeedcontainingthecovenant.b. Thebenefit“touchesandconcern”theland,nopersonalcovenantsallowed(Spencer’sCase)

89

c. Wholeideaisthatthelandisgrantedwithsomeassurancethatlandbeingsoldwon’tbeusedinawaythatnegativelyimpactstheremaininglandinthegeneralproximity

d. GalbraithvMadawaskaClub–therighttochoosethepersonwhowilloccupytheservientlandhasnothingtodowiththeusetowhichthelandwillbeput–doesn’ttouchandconcertheland

4. PrinciplesofEquitymustbemeta. Mustcometothecourtwithcleanhandsb. Nojurisdictionoverbonafidepurchaserforvaluec. Noticeofthecovenantmusthavebeengiveninaccordancewithstatutoryrequirements

GalbraithvMadawaskaProfessorMadawaska–didn’tliketheagreement–precludedhiswifefromowning/livinginthecottage.Soldthelandtohimselfandhiswifeasjointtenantswithoutthecovenant.CovenantdidNOTtouchandconcerntheland.Righttochoosewhooperatestheservientland.NOTHINGtodowiththeuse.Relatesonlytothekindofpersonwhomaybegivenoccupation.CovenantsconcerningOWNERSHIPandnotUSEwillnottouchandconcerntheland.CovenantsinEdmonton1. CarruthersCovenant

a. Preventssomeusesanddevelopmentsofthepropertytomaintainanexclusivecharacterofaneighborhood(Glenora)2. Hudson'sBayCompanyCovenant

a. Restrictedthedevelopmentofanylotstosinglefamilyhomesb. Inthe1960sand1970sitwasrezonedtoallowfordevelopmentc. SzymanskivExcelResources:

i. BuildingownedbyExcelResourcessociety,wantedtomakeitintoagrouphome.Someoftheneighborstriedtoenjointhisuseonthebasisofthecovenant

ii. Para1:thecovenantsaysthatonlyoneprivatedwellinghouseshallbeerectedonanyofthesaidlots.Anybuildingconstructedtoaccommodatemorethanonehouseholdisnotdeemedtobeaprivatedwellinghouse1. Thislimitationappliestoform-thisisabigresidentialhouse,butwasstillbuiltasasinglefamily

household,sothecourtdeterminedthattheusebythegrouphomewasnotinviolationofthisparagraphiii. Para7:appliestouse-thecourtacknowledgesthatHBCwastryingtocreatearesidentialneighborhoodofa

certainclass,butsincethisuseisnotfortradeormanufacturingitisresidentialandconsistentwiththecovenant'spurpose

iv. ShowswhycovenantshavebeenabandonedinfavourofzoningTherunningofthebenefitinequity• EquityDOESallowthebenefitofacovenanttorunwiththecovenantee• Successormustdemonstrateanentitlementtothebenefit• Asuccessoroforiginalcovenanteemaybeentitledtothebenefitby:

o (1)Annexationofthebenefittocovenantee'sland;o (2)Assignmentofthebenefitfromthecovenanteetothesuccessor;oro (3)Abuildingscheme(restrictionsandbenefitsbeingpartofabuildingscheme)

1. Annexation

a. Intention:Theaffixingofthebenefittothedominantlandwiththeintentionthatitbepassedautomaticallyonthesaleofthedominantpropertyi. Intentionisusuallystatedbylanguagesuchas"thebenefitisannexedtothesedominantlands"

b. Benefittinglandmustbeascertainablefromdeedi. Otherwiseisapersonalrightofthecovenanteeanddoesn'tbindii. NOannexationbyimplication(SekretovvToronto)

c. Touchandconcern:benefitcanonlybeaffixedtothedominanttenementifittouchesandconcernsthosebenefittinglands

Note:Assignmentvsannexation• Thebenefitofanassignmentisachoseinaction(capableofbeingassignedinAlberta,s.20JudicatureAct),butassignment

isn'tveryusefulb/ctheburdenmustbeannexedtothelandofthecovenanteefortheburdentorun

90

• Soifthereisnoannexationbutthereisanassignment,thebenefitwillpassbutthecovenantisonlyenforceableagainsttheoriginalcovenantor

• Willonlybindsuccessorifthebenefitisannexed-inwhichcasewedon'tneedanassignment• Bottomline:assignmentwillonlyallowyoutosuetheoriginalcovenantor,notanassigneeofthecovenantor

2. BuildingSchemes(planofsubdivision)

a. CommonVendor:personwhodevelopsandsellsthelotstodifferentpurchasers.Theydon'tneedagreementsbetweenthemselves.Alloftherestrictionsputinplacepriortoanysale

b. Parcelslaidoutsubjectstorestrictionsthatcanonlybeconsistentwithageneralscheme:i. E.g.preservingcommonneighborhoodamenities,nooneshalluselandsinaparticularwayordevelopoutside

certainguidelinesc. Restrictionsintendedforthebenefitofallparcelswithinthescheme:everylotownerisentitledtoenforcementof

thecovenantagainstanyotherbuyerorpropertyownerd. Parcelsacquiredontheunderstandingthatrestrictionswouldinuretothebenefitofallparcels

SeeBerryvIndianParkAssociationEnforcementandTermination• LandTitlesAct,s48(1):youcanregisteragainstanyservientlandsandforthebenefitofdominantlands,anyconditionor

covenantthatisinfactcapableofrunningwiththelando Saysyoucanregisterthecovenantandtherewillbeconstructivenotice,butwhetherornotitisactuallycapableof

landisresolvedbysubstantivelando (4):thefirstownerandeverytransfereetotheoriginalcovenantorisdeemedtobeeffectedwithnoticesimply

becausethecovenantisregistered• B/citdealswithenforcement,willalsoallowthesuccessorofthecovenantorawayout-topersuadethecourt

thatthecovenantshouldbemodifiedordischarged• 2reasonswhythecourtmightdoso:thatthemodificationwillbebeneficialtoallthepersonsprincipally

interestedintheenforcementofthecovenant(changeisforallthecovenanteesbenefit)ORthecovenantnowconflictswiththelocalstatutoryplan/zoningbylaw,andthemodificationisinthepublicinterest

• AmarDevelopment(2016)-modificationordischargeofacovenanto If,forexample,oneneighborbreaksthecovenant,theotherneighborscantakethemtocourt.Theywouldhavetwo

defences:

(1)Avalidcovenantmightbecomespent,obsoleteorunworkable• Significantchangeinneighborhoodcharacter,orwidespreadacquiescenceinviolationsmightsignalthatthe

purposesofabuildingschemearedefeated• Whendoesaconflictbetweenacovenantandmunicipalbylawarise?

§ Aconflictbetweenacovenantandamunicipalbylawarisesonlyifcompliancewiththecovenantwouldmeanviolatingthebylaw

(2)Enforcementofthecovenantwouldleadtosuchharmthatitwouldbeinequitableforaninjunctiontobeissued• Itistruethatthevalueofacovenantliesinenforcement,notindamages• Becausethevalueofcovenantliesinobservance,aninjunctionandnotdamagesisthedefaultremedy• Aninjunctionisadiscretionaryremedyandwillnotbegrantedwhereinequitable• Sometimescourtsweighintheburdenofaninjunctionagainstthebenefittotheapplicant

§ E.g.iftheconstructionofahouseissubstantiallycompleteandthefinancialharmtotheviolatorwouldbeveryhigh

BURDENOFPOSITIVECOVENANTS• Apositivecovenantisonethatcompelsthecovenantortospendmoneyorperformanactiveobligation• Thetraditionalpositionisthattheburdenofpositivecovenantsdoesnotruninequity• KeppellvBailey:argumentsagainstanyburdensrunning

o ThiscasewasdisregardedinTulk,whichallowedtheburdenofrestrictivecovenantstoruninequityo AfterTulk,wehaveanothercase(Austerberry):

91

• RuleagainstpositivecovenantsissometimesreferredtoastheAusterberryRule• Severallandownerswhodecidetobuildaprivatetollroadrunningthroughtheirlands.Later,themunicipality

expropriatestheroad.Mechanismsbywhichownerswhosepropertyabutstheroadaremadeliabletopayforthecostofrepairs.Thisownersaysthetrusteescovenantedinitiallytomaintaintheroad,sincethemunicipalityisasuccessorsincetheyexpropriated,theyhavetopayforitthemselves

• Courtsaysno-positivecovenantswillnotrun• Wherethereisarestrictivecovenant,theburdenandbenefitofwhichdonotrunatlaw,courtsofequity

restrainanyonewhotakesthepropertywithnoticeofthatcovenantfromusingitinawaythatisinconsistentwiththecovenant,butwillnotenforceacovenantinsuchawayastorequirethesuccessorsintitleofthecovenantor,toundertakeaburdenuponthemselvesinaccordancewithwhattheoriginalcovenantorboundhimselftodo

AttemptstoRelaxtheAusterberryRule• ThelawinCanadaissummarizedinCDD123vAmberwood(2002)• Thebenefitandburdenprinciple:

o (1)Mutualbenefitandburden(HalsallvBrizell)o (2)Pureprincipleofbenefitandburden(TitovWaddell)o (3)PPBBrejected(RhonevStephens)o (4)TheCanadianapproach?(DCC123vAmberwood)

HalsallvBrizell• Facts:Developerofthesubdivisiongrantedlotsinthegatedcommunity,maintainingaseawall,publicpromenade,andsome

others.Theseareprivate.Everylotinthesubdivisionisgrantedeasementstousethecommonamenitiesandtheyagreetopayaproportionateshareofthecostoftheamenities.100yearslateroneofthelotownerssplitsthelotintothre

• Issue:Doeachnewownerpayapriceofthefees?• Reason:

o Theburdenofthepositivecovenantwasunenforceableagainstasuccessorintitle,butthesuccessorwouldnotbeentitledtothebenefitofthedeedwithoutassumingtheburden(ruleinHarsall,orthebenefitandburdenrule)

TitovWaddell• Facts:Companywasgrantedphosphateminingrightsonanisland.Inthesameinstrumentthecompanycovenantedto

replantworkedlandsandreturnthemtoislanders.Company'srightsassignedtotheBritishPhosphatesCommissioners.Commissionerssaytheyaren'tboundbecauseit’sapositiveobligation

• Reasons:o Distinguished"conditionalbenefits"(hereisabenefitgrantedtoyouonconditionthatyouassumetheburden,link

betweenbenefitandburden)from"independentobligation"(agreementbetweenAandB,eachagreetodocertainthings,independently-burdenmustbeassumedonlyunderaprincipleofpurebenefitandburden).Thelattermaybetetheredonlyundertheprincipleofpurebenefitandburden

o Asamatterofconstruction,itwasheldthattheminingrightswerenotgrantedconditionalonreplanting;nevertheless,underthepurebenefitandburden(PPBB)theCommissionerswereboundbytheburdenhavingreceivedthebenefit

o EstablishesapureprincipleofbenefitandburdenRhonevStephens• Facts:TheroofwhichcoversWalfordHousealsocoverspartoftheWalfordCottage.Theownersofbothpropertiessoldthe

Cottage.Thetermsstatethatalleasementsareconveyedandtheadjoiningproperty(house)shallcontinue(meansthatifthereisarightofsupportandarighttoenjoyprotectionoftheroof,thatrightwillbeenjoyedbythebuyeroftheCottageandtheirsuccessorsintitle).Vendorcovenantsforhimselftomaintaintothereasonablesatisfactionsuchpartoftheroofasliesabovetheproperty(lateralrightofsupportforbothproperties,ownerofthehouseagreestomaintaintheroof)o 26yearslatertheroofleaksanddamagesthehouse.Ownerofthecottagesuestheownerofthehousefornot

maintaining.Ownerofthehousesaysthey'reasuccessor,positiveobligationsodon'toweanything• Reasons:

o Judgerejectstheprincipleofpurebenefitandburdeno Restrictivecovenantsdepriveofarighto Equitycouldn'tcomplyanownertocomplywitharule-personcannotbemadeliableonacontractunlesshewas

partytoito Enforcementofpositivecovenantliesincontract-apositivecovenantmakesanownertoexercisehisrights

92

o Restrictivecovenantliesinproperty-deprivesofarightinproperty• PrincipleinTitoisrejected• CreatestheEnglishposition-allowsaconditionalbenefitonaburdentorun• TheEnglishPosition

o Thebenefitmustbeconditionalontheburdeno Theburdenmustrelatetothebenefito Asuccessormustbeinapositiontorejectthebenefito Thebenefitisexercisableasofrightundertheagreement

PositiveCovenantsFromAmberwood:• Ifthefactsestablishthatthegrantingofabenefitoreasementwasconditionalonassumingthepositiveobligation,thenthe

obligationisbinding• Wheretheobligationisframedsoastoconstituteacontinuingobligationuponwhichthegrantoftheeasementwas

conditional,theobligationcanbeimposedasanincidentoftheeasementitself,andnotmerelyaliabilitypurportingtorunwiththeland

• Ownerofcondolands#1grantedownerofcondolands#2-havetopayfees• Iftheirsuccessorsfailtopay,theeasementmayautomaticallybeterminated

FromHalsburry'sLawsofEngland:• Ifthefactsestablishthatthegrantingofabenefitoreasementwasconditional,thentheobligationisbinding• Theobligationmaybeframedorconstruedsoastoconstituteacontinuingconditionandtorendertheeasementitself

conditionalonthedominantownerforthetimecomplyingwithanobligationtorepairortocontributetorepair,andsobedeterminableordefeasibleonnon-compliance

• Thissoundslikeadeterminablelimitation,orconditionsubsequento Notacovenant,butratherthebenefitgrantedismadesubjecttodeterminingevent

• Ifyouboughtlandknowingofanobligation,thereisnoreasonwhyyoushouldn'tbeboundbyit

Optionsforpositivecovenantstorun:1. Leases

a. Covenanttopayrentisapositiveobligation.Ifatenantassignstheirinteresttothesuccessor,theyareboundtopayrent

2. Statutesa. Legislationthatauthorizestheenforcementofpositiveobligations,e.g.condolegislation,paycondofees

3. Chainofcovenantsa. Covenanteepromisespersonallytopay/maintain/repairandalsopromisestoexactasimilarobligationfroma

successorintitleb. Ifthecovenantisbreached,theywillsuetheoriginalcovenantorwhohasnochoicebuttosueitssuccessorintitle

4. HalsallvBrizellafterAmberwooda. Notcompletelysettled

5. Trueconditionalbenefita. Estatesubjecttodeterminablelimitationorconditionsubsequentb. Amberwood-

6. Rentchargesa. Rentpaymentwhicharisesoutoffreeholdland,annexedtothelandb. Ifyouliveintheneighborhoodneedtopaythesefees,eventhoughitsfreeholdlandnotcondoland

Date post:	18-May-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Property Can 2020 - Amazon Web Services · 2020. 10. 22. · Victoria Park Racing and Recreation...

Documents