You know that from time to time -- mostly thanks to our friend and colleague Shane Rayman and his firm -- we cover property goings-on north of the border when a good property rights case comes before the Supreme Court of Canada (see here and here for past examples).
Well, here's another one, this time involving the intriguing question of whether government-owned land is subject to adverse possession. Here's where you can watch the arguments (in English or French, naturally!). As the summary of the case from the Supreme Court website notes:
The appellants are owners of a residential property in the City of Toronto. They sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of City parkland that their predecessors in title had fenced off with a chain link fence and enclosed into their backyard. The City acknowledged that the appellants’ evidence satisfied the traditional test for adverse possession. The issue was whether the disputed land was nevertheless immune to a claim for adverse possession by virtue of being City land. The application judge found that a private landowner could not acquire title by encroaching on public land and fencing off portions for their private use. This decision was upheld on appeal.
This situation reminds us of this case from Pennsylvania, where the court held that city-owned land was subject to a claim of adverse possession, notwithstanding the general rule that publicly-owned property isn't subject to such a claim. What about Canada? We'll see.
But even if adverse possession doesn't grab you, you should check out the argument recording to compare how that court handles oral arguments with the U.S. Supreme Court.