Section 69 Law of Property Act

If opposing ownership is abolished, applications for permanent improvement of fake land under section 69 of the Property Act would play a more important role in resolving land ownership disputes. To facilitate the fair resolution of disputes, ALRI recommends that an award of continuous improvement should not have to prove whether the person who made the improvement believed it was their country. This amendment would harmonize section 69 with the way the courts have applied it. ALRI also recommends that Section 69 claims be made at any time. If the objective of these reforms is to balance the balance between a registered owner – who can claim to recover land ownership at any time – and a squatter who may have spent a great deal of time and resources establishing sustainable improvement on the wrong land by making a mistake in good faith, then a claim under section 69 of the Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7, should also be exempt from the restriction requirements. Currently, these claims are also subject to a 10-year statute of limitations – although the statute of limitations never appears to run for the reasons outlined in the report. In our review, we found that section 69 of the Property Act does not require any change with respect to the continuous improvement, nature or quality of the misconception, or the wide range of remedies available. However, section 69 requires further clarification as to who can apply, especially if the applicant is not the person who made the initial improvement. We are of the view that a subsequent occupant should be allowed to claim permanent improvement and should have access to the same range of remedies as the original improver.

Initial consultations with the Canadian Bar Association`s real estate services in Edmonton and Calgary revealed that these recommendations were supportive. We invite professionals – especially those with experience with property claims – to complete a short six-question survey on ALRI`s website. The results of the consultation will feed into our final recommendations, which will then be presented to the Government of Alberta. No matter how you describe it, the law of harmful property suffers from a problem of public perception. Many Albertans believe that opposing property is an affront to their property rights, or that it simply should not exist in a Torrens land title system. Despite the fact that opposing property has existed in Alberta since the province`s inception – and that cases of success are relatively rare – the idea that opposing property rewards a willing intruder and punishes a registered owner who is forced to surrender some of his land without compensation persists. (1) In response to any application for partition, the court may order the division of such property or other property and make such subsequent orders as may be necessary or appropriate. The proposed recommendations would affect the statute of limitations, property law and land title, ICA 2000, c. L-4. They would maintain or benefit from the balance between a registered owner who is attempting to repossess land and a squatter who has made a lasting improvement to land that he or she believed rightfully belonged to him. Claims based on intentional and deliberate trespassing would be excluded, as would claims for temporary interference or mere land use. Section 69 of the Property Act would be the primary dispute resolution mechanism in the absence of prejudicial possession, allowing courts to develop more flexible solutions that take into account the particular circumstances of each particular case.

This change would mean that a registered land owner could repossess at any time and would not have to act within the current 10-year limitation period. Currently, applications for repossession of land are subject to a 10-year limitation period that runs from the expropriation of the land by the registered owner. The effective abolition of opposing possession presupposes that such claims can be asserted at any time, which means that they should be completely exempt from limitation periods. 69 – Power to order partition or sale in lieu of partition The essential elements of opposing possession are as follows: We recognize that the exclusion of land reclamation claims under the Action Limitation Act, RSA 2000, c L-12, seems somewhat unusual, at least initially. However, we believe that exempting these claims from restrictions – particularly in the context of a land registry system providing conclusive proof of ownership – is not contrary to the objectives of the limitation period. The discussion report attempts to answer this central question: If opposing property were abolished in Alberta, how would we ensure that the underlying disputes between registered property owners and residents were resolved efficiently and effectively? Our recommendations are as follows: The abolition of opposing ownership would not affect silent title claims that have already been granted. Ongoing lawsuits – those filed before the amendments came into force – could also continue. However, if a squatter had a potential negative property claim and did not sue before the amendments came into force, the claim could not be claimed. -the registered owner does not need to be in possession of the disputed property, -the resident must use and occupy the disputed land, and -the resident`s use and occupation must be exclusive, continuous, open or visible and well-known for the required period of time.

In October 2017, the Government of Alberta asked the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) to review the Adverse Property Act, including how best to abolish it. Our current project builds on ALRI`s previous work in this area and led to our report on discussion #33, Possession adverse and Lasting Improvements to Wrong Land. Currently, a person who has occupied someone else`s land for at least 10 years can claim silent title by adverse possession. The profession must be exclusive, open, well-known and continuous.