The War for Real Estate That Someone Else Owns: What Do the Very Best Woodstock Lawyers for Property Say?

There are times when property that is not yours can be considered as if it were yours. The doctrine of “adverse possession” is an old legal principle. It allows a person to effectively take legal ownership of someone else’s property. But the possessor must prove that they have “openly” and “notoriously” occupied the land for long enough. The law was eventually codified and modernized in the Real Property Limitations Act.

A significant majority of Woodstock lawyers for property will tell you that adverse possession applies to a handful of cases. You need to have actually occupied the property in question for at least ten years for adverse possession to apply to it. The required period of occupation must have been completed prior to the property’s conversion from the old Land Registry system to the new Land Titles system of 2003.

You must also have had “actual, open, notorious, constant, continuous, and peaceful” possession of the property. It essentially means that you and everyone you know must be aware that you live there. You must demonstrate your intention to possess the property exclusively through appropriate actions. You must act to exclude all others from the property. You must clearly substantiate that you are treating it as exclusively yours.

Learn the Rules before Playing Your Game

The general consensus was that the law of adverse possession applied solely to private properties. It categorically excluded all things public. Even the finest Woodstock lawyers for property believed in that way. It meant that one cannot adversely possess government-owned land. But a Canadian couple fenced off city parkland and claimed it in 2023. Kosicki v. Toronto (City) in the Ontario Court of Appeal challenged the status quo.

It was no doubt a very famous case. They met the traditional requirements for adverse possession. And the most pertinent question was whether those homeowners could acquire that adverse possession in the city parkland. The Real Property Limitations Act explicitly makes exceptions for government land. It states that certain kinds of public land cannot be adversely possessed.

The Couple Proposed: The Judiciary Disposed

But the language of that section does not mention city parks. So what did seasoned Woodstock lawyers for property say? The court ruled that the omission of city parklands from the Real Property Limitations Act did not necessarily mean they were open to adverse possession. He referred to another recent case out of Ontario. The judge came across a “public benefit” exception—something that does not exist in the Real Property Limitations Act.

He argued that it prevents city parkland and any land for which the public benefit was a concern from being acquired by the method of adverse possession. The judge also observed that it is not appropriate for the guardians of the law to exercise excessive power in a democracy and that they must restrain themselves, i.e., not exceed their bounds. He believed that the judges in this particular case had failed to act in such a manner. You may call any of our Woodstock lawyers for property-related queries!