Property Fall Final Case Ratios

Question 1

Victoria Park

Answer 1

no property right in spectacle

o This would most likely not be good law anymore

Question 2

INS v AP

Answer 2

• news=quasi property (exclude some parties from news but cannot give exclusive acce)
• property in someone’s news story not in facts (except between competitors)
• quasi property to prevent competition
• Knowledge and truth free as the air

Question 3

R v Stewart

Answer 3

Cannot arbitrarily call this property in essence of the criminal law. In common law it is property and there may be a remedy, by the breach of fiduciary duty.

Question 4

Moore v Regents

Answer 4

cannot decide something is property if you have not treated it as property
o No property in cells—worried about slavery issues and black market
oCompensation for lack of consent
oMoore did not put forward any work, labour, or effort for the formation of the patent

Question 5

JCM v ANA

Answer 5

-If the parties treat it as property it is property
-sperm was treated as property from the beginning (donor was paid), and is therefore property
o La Forest hated this

Question 6

Saulnier v Royal Bank

Answer 6

fishing licenses= property under the statutes
oFishing licenses sufficient to qualify the “bundle of rights”
oHaving sufficient control over how something can be used is sufficient to call it property
oCannot easily take away license (stability)

Question 7

Harrison v Carswell

Answer 7

• Private space= right to exclude
• Public space= right not to be excluded
• mall was a private space

Question 8

Committee for Commonwealth of Canada v Canada

Answer 8

airports are quasi public places, they are on the same constitutional footing as streets—same common property as streets

Question 9

Pierson v Post

Answer 9

To assert possession you need:

1) Clear act
2) Intent to possess
- all the world understands that the pursuer has “an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use”
- Person who brought the animal within the “certain control” gives rise to possession

Question 10

Young v Hichens

Answer 10

The plaintiff did not have complete control and therefore full possession yet
o Clear act is not always clear—bring in experts

Question 11

Tubantia

Answer 11

•You can have ownership without custody at the moment
-Possession= sufficient control (subject to context and type of property)
-Manifest intention
•P did all the work they could do to show possession
•Work, labour, and effort

Question 12

Perry v Gregory

Answer 12

−Court uses expert testimony to be more familiar with customs when needed
−Finders do not give up possession rights unless they abandon their interests
−D waited months to make a claim → lacked clear intention to take possession

Question 13

Armory v Delamirie

Answer 13

finder had the right of possession against all but rightful owner

Question 14

Bridges v Hawkesworth

Answer 14

• Store was a public area

* D had no responsibility over them and no knowledge they were there—could not show he had intention to possess them

Question 15

Elwes v Brigg Gas Company

Answer 15

Boat belongs to land owner
•Policy change: doesn’t matter if occupier knows the things are there occupier has possessory rights of any attachment to land & intention to control land

Question 16

South Staffordshire

Answer 16

P exercised control over D and exercised a manifest intention to control all things on their land—even if it is unknown that the chattel is there

Question 17

Hannah v Peel

Answer 17

• an owner who has never occupied the premises of his land has no right to claim an object found lying unattached to that land
• There was little intention to manifest control
• if not loose may have been different

Question 18

London Corporation v Appleyard

Answer 18

• A servant/agent who finds in the course of their employment is obliged to account to employer (employees have no claim)
• possession of land (occupier)=possession of everything attached
• attached to the building (in wall) and they had intention to control the building (attachment + intention to control= possession)

Question 19

Grafstein v Holme and Freemans

Answer 19

• possession because he had exercised control of the box when he told his employees where to place it in the basement
• Employment case—important they are employees because they went to employer and asked what to do, they gave up intention when they asking him what to do

Question 20

Parker v British Airways Board

Answer 20

• Establishes overall the right and obligations of the finder
• Did not relinquish right to possess because he said he wants it back if the true owner isn’t found (demonstrates intention to control)
• Lounge is quasi-public
• Ratio: in favor of the finder because he demonstrated sufficient intention to control

Question 21

Keron v Cashman

Answer 21

• No one displayed intention to possess until the money was discovered, P had no knowledge of what was in the sock and did not show a manifest intention
• They all played with it

Question 22

Edmunds v Ronella

Answer 22

Because possession was jointly obtained, the joint finders were entitled to an equal share of the money, a one-third of each share—because its only found when they leave so they are all joint finders

Question 23

Popov v Hayashi

Answer 23

•Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally recognizable pre-possessory interest in property. Pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession that can support a cause of action for conversion.
-falls under the finding of joint finders
•Joint possession because Popov lost it unfairly

Question 24

Bird v Fort Frances

Answer 24

• P is a wrongful taker but because owner never came forward he had a greater claim to possession, only a true owner can prove a wrongful taker
• Wrongful taker has more possession over stranger

Question 25

Moffatt v Kazana

Answer 25

• True owner of the chattel has the highest claim,

- Forgetting not abandonment (not intentional)

Question 26

AG of Canada v Brock

Answer 26

• Could not presume ownership of money just because it was found in his car
• Sufficient abandonment—no intention to control
• Was not aware of its presence because friend borrowed the car, and he denies owning it (gave up intent to control)
• Cops “found” the lost money and thus are presumptive owners

Question 27

Cochrane v Moore

Answer 27

•Delivery is required so there is no gift but there is an expressed trust (C acting as trustee for M) M gets part of the the horse
•Can show complete trust
-Trust formed when C says “I’ll take care of it”
-Donor retain legal title and transfer equitable title to donee (Trust=intention+acceptance+no physical delivery)

Question 28

In re Cole

Answer 28

•In order for a gift to be valid there needs to be intent to give, acceptance, and delivery
-Fulfills intent to give and receive but no delivery—no change in use or control of the furniture
•Third party knowing about transfer of property is important from an evidentiary perspective (best to have witness)

Question 29

Irons v Smallpiece

Answer 29

• in order to transfer property by gift there must either be a deed, instrument of gift, or there must be actual delivery of thing to the donee
• Judge said there must be a change of possession—no delivery no gift

Question 30

Mackedie v Mackedie

Answer 30

• Written endorsements have sufficient means to transfer property
• clear intent to give the paintings, sufficient transfer of control

Question 31

Thomas v Times

Answer 31

Test for intention, courts consider:

1) The circumstances of the donor
2) The relationship between parties
3) size of gift in relation to the total amount of donees property

-Use if he is dead, if alive he can testify

Question 32

Watt v Watt

Answer 32

• Constructive trust

* Statement did not constitute delivery because parties both possessed keys, court recognized WLE of both parties

Question 33

Csada v Csada

Answer 33

-If donor doesn’t have capacity it will negate intention
The equitable doctrine of undue influence has two categories
1. Express undue influence: trickery or coercion and
2. Implied undue influence: abuse of relationship

Question 34

Re Zachariuc; Chevrier v Public Trustee

Answer 34

Dealt with elements of donation mortis causa:

1. Gift must be made in contemplation, though not necessarily in expectation, of death
2. Must have been delivery to donee of the subject-matter of the gift
3. Gift must be made under such circumstances as shew that the thing is to revert to the donor in case he should recover

Question 35

Heffron v Imperial Parking Co

Answer 35

•Was a bailment not a license because they took possession of the keys, there was a transfer of control
-If there is a transfer of control it is a bailment

Question 36

Bata v City Parking Canada Ltd

Answer 36

• Licensor has no duty of care

- no possession over vehicle and ticket says this is just for use of the parking space only

Question 37

Minichiello v Devonshire Hotel

Answer 37

plaintiffs statement to attendant was sufficient to enable the court to conclude that one could reasonably anticipate that property of such a value might be in the car

Question 38

Palmer v Toronto Medical Parking

Answer 38

License: gratuitous because they had the choice to take it elsewhere, solely for the benefit of the owner of the car

Question 39

Punch v Savoy’s Jewlers Ltd

Answer 39

Contract between the bailee and sub-bailee did not extend to bailor

Question 40

The Pioneer Container

Answer 40

If a bailee sub-bails goods with the owners authority, the relationship between the owners and sub-bailee is that of owner and bailee, such that the owner is bound by the terms of the sub-bailment if the owner had expressly or impliedly consented to the bailee making a sub-bailment on those terms

Question 41

Rawlinson v Mort

Answer 41

• Expands delivery to include constructive delivery.
• Constructive Delivery = Symbolic Delivery − Symbolic delivery → acting in a way that symbolizes that you are delivery the time

Question 42

Winter v Winter

Answer 42

• Son acted as owner after promissory words, so the court recognized constructive delivery.
• Intention can happen after the delivery

Question 43

Kilpin v Ratley

Answer 43

Verbal gifting was deemed sufficient, as the daughter had prior custody of the furniture. Possession satisfied delivery, as well as words acknowledging gift.

Question 44

Ashby v Tolhurst

Answer 44

Court holds it was a licensee relationship, which has no obligations towards chattel. Possession never transferred, so not relationship of bailment.