Property Cases (December Exam

Front 1

Victoria Park v Taylor

Back 1

Frameshifting

Front 2

INS v AP

Back 2

(Dissent) Courts recognize that social interests both hinder and encourage protection of the right of property in news.

Front 3

Stewart v The Queen

Back 3

Due to policy concerns, the Court refuses to recognize a property interest in "confidential information," leaving this to Parliament.

Front 4

Pierson v Post

Back 4

(Maj:) Whoever takes first possession owns it.
(Min:) This discourages people from hunting foxes (which is desirable).

Front 5

Perry v Gregory

Back 5

Although both participated in the finding of it, the rules of the field dictated who took first possession.

Front 6

Young v Hichens

Back 6

The fish aren't caught until they can no longer escape.

Front 7

Tubantia

Back 7

For sunken wrecks, marking the area of the wreck, accessing the wreck, and sending in an exploratory team is a sufficient act of possession.

Front 8

Armory v Delamirie

Back 8

The finder has a title against the whole world but the true owner.

Front 9

Hibbert v McKiernan

Back 9

The occupier had a clearly manifested intent to control what was on the property; thus, his claim was successful against the finder.

Front 10

Bridges v Hawkesworth

Back 10

Because the occupier didn't know of the object's existence, and because they weren't intentionally deposited there, the finder had a better title. (They were also found in the public area of the store.)

Front 11

Elwes v Brigg

Back 11

Occupier always has a superior right to whatever is found under or attached to realty.

Front 12

South Staffordshire

Back 12

In addition to having title to things under and attached to realty, the occupier may have a superior title when s/he exercises sufficient control over the locus in quo.

Front 13

City of London v Appleyard

Back 13

The occupier has a better title to whatever may be attached to a building. (But here the freeholder recovered it due to the terms of the lease.)

Front 14

Hannah v Peel

Back 14

The finder has a title superior to the occupier if the latter does not possess, control, or use the property.

Front 15

Parker v British Airways

Back 15

The finder may have a title superior to the occupier's if the latter does not know of the object's existence, does not exercise sufficient control over the locus in quo, and does not manifest sufficient intent to control the chattels in the locus in quo.

Front 16

Grafstein v Holme and Freeman

Back 16

Whoever has de facto control over the receptacle and has a manifest intent to control what's within it has a superior title. (Or: the occupier may have a superior title; or the employer.)

Front 17

Kowal v Ellis

Back 17

Finder keeps it because of the occupier's lack of knowledge and control.

Front 18

Keron v Cashman

Back 18

If several people participate in the finding of something, they are joint finders with an equal interest in the property. The intention to possess something must be concurrent with the physical control of it.

Front 19

Edmonds v Ronella

Back 19

Joint finder rule + forming intent after the money was discovered.

Front 20

Bird v Fort Frances

Back 20

The Armory v Delamirie rule holds up, notwithstanding P's questionable intent.

Front 21

R v Christie

Back 21

Christie had physical control of the object, but no intent to possess it to the exclusion of others.

Front 22

Moffatt v Kazana

Back 22

Finders and occupiers have the best title to the "found" items against the whole world except the true owner.

Front 23

AG Canada v Brock

Back 23

At trial: He had sufficient control of the vehicle to have title to the cash, and showed no absolute intention to abandon it.
On appeal: He didn't have sufficient control of the vehicle (and its contents) and on first pass he didn't have an intent to possess it.

Front 24

Heffron v Imperial Parking Co

Back 24

(1) The more control over an object is transferred from one to another, the more likely the court is to recognize a bailment (as opposed to mere license).
(2) Where there's a bailment, exculpatory clauses do not excuse D from all liability where gross negligence would result in a fundamental breach of contract. (Not the case today.)

Front 25

Bata v City Parking Canada

Back 25

Evidence for lease: "charges are for use of parking space only"; signs; keys left in car (at attendant's request).
No liability

Front 26

Dixon and Zilinski v City Parking Canada

Back 26

An unusual request for the benefit of the (effective) bailee, coupled with a transfer of the keys of the car, may create a bailment, even with a "parking space only" clause.
Liability.

Front 27

Minichiello v Devonshire Hotel

Back 27

Unusual objects left in cars won't normally be compensable, unless the presence of such "valuables" is communicated to the bailee.

Front 28

Palmer v Toronto Medical Arts Building

Back 28

Evidence for license: lack of ticket system, no usual parking system.
Evidence for gratuitous bailment: P transferred keys to D's attendant for P's convenience (snowy).
No liability.

Front 29

Ashby v Tolhurst

Back 29

For lease: "Car park ticket." Driver locked the car and took keys. No liability.

Front 30

Mitchell v Silverman

Back 30

identical exculpatory clause (to Heffron), upheld by ONCA.

Front 31

Samuel Smith and Son

Back 31

Exculpatory clause excluding liability for negligence.
No liability.

Front 32

Brown v Toronto Auto Parks

Back 32

Items in car too unusual for bailee to be liable.