Neighbouring landowners disputed ownership of a narrow strip of land along their shared boundary.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title based on adverse possession prior to the properties entering the land titles system in 1995 and claimed damages for trespass and removal of trees.
The court reviewed the requirements for adverse possession under the Real Property Limitations Act, including actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion for the statutory period.
The evidence showed the plaintiffs’ activities—primarily mowing grass and maintaining the area—were not inconsistent with the defendants’ use of the land as a buffer between properties and did not establish exclusive possession or an intention to exclude.
The court also rejected arguments of mutual mistake regarding the boundary line.
The plaintiffs failed to prove the elements required for possessory title.
