Ontario Civil


Trial judge did not fail to consider proper elements for adverse possession

Parties were neighbours. Plaintiffs offered to purchase portion of land from defendants, but offer was rejected. Plaintiffs claimed, by adverse possession, strip of land between properties. Plaintiffs were awarded judgment. Defendants’ title to disputed property was extinguished and order vesting title to plaintiffs was granted. Defendants appealed. Defendants brought motion for stay pending appeal. Motion dismissed. If vesting order was not stayed, appeal would become moot, and there was irreparable harm. Given significant consequences to defendants, balance of convenience favoured stay. However, defendants had not established that there was serious issue to be tried on appeal. Bald assertions were not sufficient to establish there was reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Trial judge did not fail to consider proper elements for adverse possession. There was ample evidence before trial judge allowing him to come to conclusions he did on facts. Trial judge did not fail to observe any principle of natural justice. Defendants failed to establish that there was some reasonable chance of appeal succeeding.

Gray v. Guerard (Feb. 26, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., John M. Johnston J., File No. Perth 039/11) 237 A.C.W.S. (3d) 839.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?