Bovey v. Gananoque (Town)
- Citation
- [1992] 2 SCR 5
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 May 1992
- Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 6 May 1992
- Posture
- Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the appellant's possession was by virtue of a lease and thus not adverse to the respondent, the appellant could not establish title by adverse possession; appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment accordingly
02
Material facts
Parties
Reginald John Bovey
Appellant Counsel: Robert E. Houston, Q.C.The Corporation of the Town of Gananoque
Respondent Counsel: Mark Appel, Q.C.; Colin WrightAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 22,016
- Report Volume: 2
- Report Page: 5
- Year: 1,992
03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether possession by the appellant was adverse for the purpose of acquiring title by adverse possession
- 02
Whether possession under a lease can be treated as adverse to the lessor for limitation/adverse possession purposes
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued he had been in possession of the lot and that his possession was adverse to the respondent, entitling him to possessory title.
- Respondent
- Respondent argued the appellant's occupation derived from a lease and therefore was not adverse to the respondent; the appellant could not acquire title by adverse possession.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada, Bovey v. Gananoque, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 5
Possession under a lease is not adverse to the lessor.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada, Bovey v. Gananoque, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 5
To acquire title by adverse possession, possession must be hostile/adverse to the true owner.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the appellant's possession was by virtue of a lease and thus not adverse to the respondent, the appellant could not establish title by adverse possession; appeal dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Judgment accordingly
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 6 May 1992
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 6 May 1992
Bovey v. Gananoque (Town) Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-05-06 Report [1992] 2 SCR 5 Case number 22016 Judges La Forest, Gérard V.; Sopinka, John; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank On appeal from Ontario Subjects Action Notes SCC Case Information: 22016 Decision Content Bovey v. Gananoque (Town), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 5 Reginald John Bovey Appellant v. The Corporation of the Town of Gananoque Respondent Indexed as: Bovey v. Gananoque (Town) File No.: 22016. 1992: May 6. Present: La Forest, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario Limitation of actions ‑‑ Real property ‑‑ Title ‑‑ Adverse possession ‑‑ Landlord and tenant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1990), 38 O.A.C. 276, setting aside a judgment of Campbell Dist. Ct. J.* declaring the appellant in possession of a lot. Appeal dismissed. Robert E. Houston, Q.C., for the appellant. Mark Appel, Q.C., and Colin Wright, for the respondent. //La Forest J.// The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by La Forest J. ‑‑ The Court is ready to render judgment now. We are all of the view that the Court of Appeal came to the correct conclusion in this case. The possession of the appellant was by virtue of a lease so he did not hold adversely of the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Cunningham, Swan, Kingston. Solicitors for the respondent: Clarke & Wright, Gananoque; Chappell, Busheell & Stewart, Toronto. * Ont. Dist. Ct. (Frontenac County), No. 116/85, May 27, 1988.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.