The appeal addressed adverse possession in British Columbia, including whether continuity was proven across an evidentiary gap and whether inconsistent use is a required element.
The court held that inconsistent use does not form part of British Columbia adverse possession law under the province’s legislative history.
However, the appellate court improperly reweighed evidence and displaced factual findings that were open to the chambers judge absent palpable and overriding error.
The claim of uninterrupted possession failed on the record accepted at first instance.
The appeal was allowed and the chambers decisions were restored.
