Squatters’ rights are alive and well in cottage country! Here is a case which was decided in February. John and George were neighbours in cottage country. Both used their properties as seasonal summer cottages. John claimed squatters’ rights over 15 feet of George’s property. He argued that he and his predecessors in title had occupied the disputed lands for over 45 years. John’s lands had been in his family since 1926. He testified that the disputed lands were used from 1932 to 1940 when his parents installed a septic system for their cottage. He stated that George’s predecessors never objected, at that time, that John’s family were using George’s land. A water reservoir built by John’s mother in 1951 was wholly situated on the disputed lands. George’s predecessors again never objected to it being located where it was built. From 1963 to 1996, John’s family used the entire area of the disputed lands as flower gardens to beautify the cottage property and they continued to maintain the area by mowing the grass and planting smaller gardens on the disputed lands.
The court held that John had proved his case for more than 10 years, which is the time period required to prove squatters’ rights. The court found that John and his family enjoyed “open, notorious, constant, and continuous use” of the disputed lands from at least 1963 until 1996 when the area was used as flower gardens. One issue in the case was whether the summer seasonal use of the cottage defeated John’s claim because the disputed lands were not occupied in the winter. The argument was that there was no “continuous use” of the disputed lands. The court concluded somewhat weakly that, although John and his family only used the property as a summer cottage, they maintained the property throughout the year by, for example, visiting the property during the winter to check on it after severe winter storms.
The law that was applied in the case is the law relating to adverse possession. The judge explained two scenarios where the law may apply: “The first includes those situations where people assert title by adverse possession arising from his or her trespassing or squatting. These have been referred to as the “inconsistent use” cases. The use of the trespasser is openly inconsistent with the intended uses of the land by the legal owner. The second line of cases involves scenarios in which title by adverse possession is obtained because of a mutually held mistake or ignorance as to who holds rightful ownership over a tract of land.” Which scenario applied to John?