Gavin Howe
The concept of possession is 9/10 of the law is a common misconception that is especially prevalent in family law cases in Canada. This phrase refers to situations where ownership is in dispute, and an individual in possession of an item or property is presumed to be the owner in the absence of evidence to the contrary. While this concept may have held some weight in the past, it is no longer a valid legal principle, especially in provinces like Alberta, where adverse possession laws have been abolished to protect landowners from losing their property to squatters or trespassers.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Area of Law | Family Law, Adverse Possession, Insurance Law |
| Location | Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Yukon, British Columbia, Ontario |
| Applicable Laws | Property Rights Statute Amendment Act, 2022, Limitations Act, Land Titles Act, Highway Traffic Act |
| Key Points | Possession is 9/10 of the law when there is no court order; possession for 10 years can lead to ownership |
| Exceptions | N/A |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Adverse possession in Alberta
Adverse possession, also known as "squatter's rights", is a legal principle in property law that allows someone who has been occupying a piece of property, for which they are not the registered owner, to go to court to assert a claim of ownership of that property. In Alberta, adverse possession laws have been a topic of debate for over 10 years.
Prior to December 15, 2022, the doctrine of adverse possession applied to private lands in Alberta. This meant that a person could claim ownership of privately held land from the registered owner if they had occupied the land for at least 10 years. However, this doctrine has been abolished in Alberta through the Property Rights Statute Amendment Act, which came into force on December 15, 2022. This Act amends three pieces of provincial legislation that deal with property rights in Alberta, providing a new level of protection for Albertans' property rights.
The Act repeals section 69 of the Law of Property Act, which previously allowed a person to retain property when they had made improvements to the land. Now, the amended section allows the court to order that the person who made the improvements remove or abandon them, or that an easement be granted. The Act also introduces a new provision, section 3.2, which stipulates that there is no limitation period for a claim for the recovery of possession of real property, and that a defendant cannot invoke adverse possession as a defence.
The primary reason for the elimination of adverse possession rules in Alberta was to protect property rights and bring peace of mind to private property owners. This change prevents new claims of adverse possession from being brought in the future, but does not affect claims that were resolved or filed with the court before the change. Additionally, prior successful claims to quiet title will continue to be valid under the newly added section 74.1(2) of the Land Titles Act, meaning that the new owner will maintain their interest in the property.
Knife Laws: Federal Regulations and Your Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vicarious liability in insurance law
Vicarious liability is a type of liability that arises when one party is held accountable for the criminal, unlawful, or reckless actions of another. In the context of insurance law, vicarious liability typically refers to a business owner's accountability for the negligence or misconduct of their employees or representatives acting within the scope of their job. This includes both on-site and off-site actions, as well as actions taken while "on a frolic of their own", a legal concept that refers to employees acting outside of their employer's business.
Vicarious liability insurance, also known as liability insurance or professional liability insurance, can help protect businesses from lawsuits resulting from these instances. This type of insurance coverage can assist in covering the costs of defending against a vicarious liability claim, as well as compensatory damages and legal costs if the business is sued. It's important to note that commercial insurance policies may have exclusions, so understanding what is and isn't covered is crucial.
In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled on vicarious liability in the context of abuse scandals involving Catholic priests. The Court determined that liability arises from the power and authority given by the Church to its clergymen over parishioners.
Vicarious liability can also extend beyond the employer-employee relationship. For example, parents can sometimes be held vicariously liable for the actions of their children, such as when an older child drives a parent's car without a license and injures or kills someone.
To protect against vicarious liability, business owners can consult attorneys or insurance brokers to review employment contracts and existing policies. Implementing reasonable precautions to prevent negligent actions by employees can also help reduce the risk of vicarious liability.
Understanding Negative Rate Constants in Chemistry
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Child custody in family law
Child custody is a major issue in family law, with lawyers receiving thousands of cases annually where they are entrusted to secure child custody for a parent. Child custody laws in Canada are based on the principle of the "best interests of the child", which means that any arrangement must prioritise the child's well-being above all else. This can be achieved through a parenting agreement or determined by a court. Since the Divorce Act came into force on March 1, 2021, Canadian law has shifted towards a focus on shared parenting when determining custody arrangements.
Jurisdiction over child custody matters in Canada is shared between federal and provincial law. The Divorce Act of Canada regulates the initiation of divorce cases in all provincial courts throughout Canada. If a divorce case is properly brought before a Canadian provincial court, the Act allows child custody issues to be determined within the divorce case. Thus, the starting point for such custody jurisdiction is whether the parties are married and whether a divorce case can be initiated.
If the parents are not engaged in a divorce case that includes child custody issues, a parent can initiate a child custody case under the statutory or common law of a Canadian province. Under common law, Canadian provincial courts had custody jurisdiction if the child was present, resident, or domiciled in the jurisdiction when the proceedings were commenced. Most Canadian provinces have enacted legislation that defines custody jurisdiction in place of common law principles. However, some provinces, such as Alberta and Manitoba, have not enacted such laws and continue to apply the general common law rules.
Canadian courts also have "parens patriae" jurisdiction, which grants them the inherent and overriding power to take actions necessary to protect children. For example, in one case, an Ontario court accepted jurisdiction over children in Saudi Arabia who had previously lived in Toronto and whose mother had returned to Canada with only one child, as there was no evidence that the Saudi Arabian courts would protect them.
Barrack Obama: Can He Practice Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$12.61 $25.99
$18.49 $19.95
Limitations Act in British Columbia
The Limitations Act in British Columbia defines a "claim" as a claim to remedy an injury, loss, or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission. The Act sets out a "limitation period", which is the period after which a court proceeding must not be brought with respect to a claim. This period varies depending on the nature of the claim and the specific circumstances.
The Limitations Act in British Columbia has certain exemptions. For instance, it does not apply to court proceedings based on existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. In such cases, court proceedings are governed by the law that would have been applicable if the Act had not been passed.
The Act also outlines specific types of claims that are exempt from limitation periods, including claims for possession of land if the rightful owner has been dispossessed in circumstances amounting to trespass, claims by a landlord to recover possession of land from a tenant who is in default, and claims by a debtor in possession of collateral to redeem that collateral.
In addition, the Limitations Act in British Columbia addresses adverse possession, which is the process of acquiring ownership of land not in the possession of the registered owner through continuous occupation. The Act states that no right or title to land may be acquired by adverse possession, effectively eliminating this doctrine in the province. This provision ensures that landowners' rights are protected, and their property cannot be claimed by trespassers.
Furthermore, the Limitations Act in British Columbia includes provisions for minors and individuals under a disability. For example, in relation to a minor, a parent, guardian, or other person who usually has care and control of the minor may be exempt from certain limitation periods. Similarly, an adult who is incapable of managing their affairs may also be considered a "person under a disability" and be subject to different limitation periods.
Gifting Money to Your Mother-in-Law: Is It Possible?
You may want to see also
Ownership and factual dispute
The phrase "possession is 9/10 of the law" refers to situations where ownership is in factual dispute. If an item is in your possession, it is presumed to be yours in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This principle has been applied in family law cases, where it is assumed that a child in the possession of one parent is rightfully theirs unless evidence suggests otherwise.
However, it is important to note that this concept of "possession is 9/10 of the law" is a misinterpretation. As one source explains, possession satisfies 9 out of 11 points that constitute ownership, so technically it is 9/11 of the law.
In Canada, the law of adverse possession, which allowed a person to take ownership of land not in the possession of the registered owner through exclusive, continuous, open, and notorious use and occupation, has been modified or abolished in several provinces. For example, in Alberta, the Property Rights Statute Amendment Act, 2022, which came into force on December 15, 2022, provides a new level of protection for landowners, ensuring they do not lose their property to deliberate trespassers. This Act repeals the previous allowance for a person to retain property where they have made lasting improvements to the land. Instead, the Court may order the person to remove or abandon these improvements.
In Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, the Yukon, and British Columbia, the law of adverse possession has been entirely or essentially abolished. In Ontario, a person can make a claim for possessory title of occupied land, but only under certain conditions. Prior successful claims to quiet title in Alberta will be maintained under the new Act, meaning that if land was acquired through adverse possession before the Act came into force, the previous owner cannot recover possession.
Congressional Power: Exempting Themselves from Laws?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The phrase "possession is 9/10 of the law" is meaningless in family law cases. However, it refers to situations where ownership is in factual dispute, and not where it's clear. Something in your possession is assumed to be yours in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
No, possession is no longer nine-tenths of the law in Alberta. The Property Rights Statute Amendment Act, 2022, came into force on December 15, 2022, and offers a new level of protection for property owners.
The laws of other provinces and territories vary with respect to the extent that adverse possession is tolerated. Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and the Yukon have entirely abolished the law of adverse possession. British Columbia has essentially eliminated the doctrine, but doesn't interfere with land title acquired through adverse possession before July 1, 1975. In Ontario, a person can make a claim for possessory title of occupied land if the occupation began before December 15, 2022.
