Majewsky v. Veveris

Majewsky v. Veveris

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent acquired possessory title to the house lands by adverse possession based on open, continuous occupation and mutual mistake; it set aside the trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail because use for harvesting wood was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 ONCA 848
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Peter Majewsky; Defendant (appellant): Juris Veveris; Defendant (appellant): Christina Miller-Veveris; Defendant (appellant): Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (on Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: cedar trail easement set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed and trial findings respecting house lands and laneway upheld.
Legal Topics
Prescriptive Easement, Lost Modern Grant, Possessory Title, Real Property Limitations Act, Costs
Source Language
english
Property Real Property Easements Adverse Possession Limitations Act Prescriptive Easement Lost Modern Grant Possessory Title +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Majewsky

Plaintiff (respondent)

Juris Veveris

Defendant (appellant)

Christina Miller-Veveris

Defendant (appellant)

Stewart Title Guaranty Company

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to the Court of Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (on Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent acquired possessory title to the house lands by adverse possession
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's possession was permissive or adverse
  3. 3 Whether effective exclusion (e.g. fencing) was required or demonstrated

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondent acquired possessory title to the house lands by adverse possession based on open, continuous occupation and mutual mistake; it set aside the trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail because use for harvesting wood was not continuous and recreational uses did not demonstrate utility to the dominant tenement; it upheld the laneway prescriptive easement including reasonable maintenance rights based on accepted evidence of maintenance activities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: cedar trail easement set aside; otherwise appeal dismissed and trial findings respecting house lands and laneway upheld.

Orders

  • Set aside trial judge's finding of a prescriptive easement over the cedar trail and dismiss the respondent's claim in that respect
  • Appeal otherwise dismissed and trial judge's findings of possessory title in respect of the house lands and prescriptive easement for the laneway upheld