Ratios Fall 2017

Question 1

Victoria Park

Answer 1

• Latham, Dixon, McTiernant—majority, argued for use of land as land, wasn’t using it for traditional uses of land, broadcasting does not harm real property
o Dixon: court shouldn’t be the one to make these decisions, leg should
o More traditional thinking
• Rich and Evatt
o Focus on work, labour, and effort
o More liberal thinking
• Ratio: no property right in spectacle
o This would most likely not be good law anymore

Question 2

INS v AP

Answer 2

• Ratio: held news to be quasi property, can exclude some parties from news but cannot give exclusive access—while there is property in someone’s news story there is no property in the facts except between competitors—quasi property to prevent competition
o How they use quasi property—don’t want to exclude everyone from the news
o Knowledge and truth free as the air
o Brandeis legislatures should make this law

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 There is no property in cells—worried about slavery issues and black market
o Did get compensation for lack of consent
o Moore did not put forward any work, labour, or effort for the formation of the patent

Question 5

JCM v ANA

Answer 5

sperm was treated as property from the beginning (donor was paid), and is therefore property
o Should be treated as property and divided between parties—they are joint owners
o La Forest hated this

Question 6

Saulnier v Royal Bank

Answer 6

fishing licenses are property under the statutes BIA and PPSA NS
o Fishing licenses sufficient to qualify the “bundle of rights” Saulnier did possess as property for purposes of the statutes
o Having sufficient control over how something can be used is sufficient to call it property
o Court stretching the law to fit the facts by saying profit a prendre
o Property under statute law but under common law it wouldn’t
o License used as collateral—treated as property (collateral of boat and assets do not have value without license)
o Cannot easily take away license (stability)

Question 7

Harrison v Carswell

Answer 7

mall was a private space so they had the right to exclude
o Public space there is a right not to be excluded
o Dissent: mall owners let people in with very little exclusion so it should be quasi-public

Question 8

Committee for Commonwealth of Canada v Canada

Answer 8

• Airports are quasi-public places and thus should be accessible to those seeking to communicate with a passing crown
• You can’t apply the charter to private parties but
• Ratio: 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

possession thus means a clear act, whereby all the world understands that that the pursuer has “an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use”
o Person who brought the animal within the “certain control” gives rise to possession

Question 10

Young v Hichens

Answer 10

if plaintiff had won he would have had damages for fish that he couldn’t prove that he had (ex: escaped)
o 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

• Manifest intention
• Control is subject to the particular context and type of property
• P did all the work they could do to show possession—did everything possible to show possession
• Work, labour, and effort

Question 12

Perry v Gregory

Answer 12

• Experts statement showed where possession should take place
• Plaintiff didn’t abandon the hole
• Greggory waited months so no 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

Question 18

London Corporation v Appleyard

Answer 18

• Safe built into the wall so it was deemed an attachment
• Another case of employment
• Ratio: attached to the building and they had intention to control the building (attachment + intention to control= possession)

Question 19

Grafstein v Holmes and Freeman

Answer 19

owned possession of the box when it was found in his shop and 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

Edmonds v Ronella

Answer 22

• Not legally found until they left the parking lot
• Ratio: 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

falls under the finding of joint finders, first person to possess intended to possess but did not do enough to establish dominion over it
• Joint possession because Popov lost it unfairly

Question 24

Bird v Fort Francis

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, did not intentionally give up possession so not abandonment—when existence is simply forgotten no abandonment (no intention to abandon) so true owner still has claim

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

Irons v Smallpiece

Answer 27

: in order to transfer property by gift there must either be a deed or 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 28

Cochrane v Moore

Answer 28

• 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 hourse
• Ratio: Equity will not perfect an imperfect but will perfect a perfect gift (if all elements can be made out) has to be equity plus something more
• Can show complete trust

Question 29

In re Cole

Answer 29

• Fulfills intent to give and receive but no delivery—no change in use or control of the furniture—had not actually delivered anything to her
• For it to be a symbolic delivery husband would have had to touch as well and if witnesses were there it would have been better

Question 30

Rawlinson v Mort

Answer 30

Expands delivery to include constructive delivery.

Question 31

Winter v Winter

Answer 31

Son acted as owner after promissory words, so the court recognized constructive delivery.

Question 32

Kilpin v Ratley

Answer 32

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

Question 33

MacKedie Estate v Mackedie

Answer 33

clear intent to give the paintings, sufficient transfer of control

Question 34

Thomas v Times Book Co

Answer 34

• Intention and satisfactory delivery are necessary to perfect gift
• Effective delivery in this case
• There was satisfactory delivery here because gave him a way to find it and he found it within a sufficient time

Question 35

Watt v Watt Estate

Answer 35

• Constructive trust

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

Question 36

Csada v Csada

Answer 36

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 37

Re Zachariuc Chevrier v Public Trustee

Answer 37

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 38

Heffron v Imperial Parking Co

Answer 38

• Was a bailment not a license because they took possession of the keys, there was a transfer of control
• To determine whether the relationship is one of bailment or a license look at whether there is a transfer of control

Question 39

Ashby v Tolhurst

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Palmer v Toronto Medical Arts Building

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Bata v City Parking Canada

Answer 41

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

Question 42

Minichello v Devonshire Hotel

Answer 42

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 43

Pioneer Container

Answer 43

Held that 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
Terms were enough to imply that P consented to sub-bailment

Question 44

Punch v Savoy’s Jewellers

Answer 44

• You can have a sub bailment but the contract between the bailee and sub-bailee does not extend to bailor