Neighbouring property owners disputed the boundary between their Toronto properties after a survey revealed that the respondents’ driveway encroached approximately 0.28 to 0.33 metres onto the applicants’ registered title.
The respondents asserted possessory title to the encroaching strip through adverse possession arising from long‑standing exclusive use of the driveway by them and their predecessor in title.
The court applied the test for adverse possession from Keefer v. Arillotta and held that continuous, exclusive possession based on a mistaken belief as to the boundary existed for more than ten years prior to the conversion of the land to the Land Titles system.
Expert photogrammetry evidence suggesting the driveway had shifted was rejected as unreliable.
The court concluded that the respondents obtained possessory title to the disputed strip and that the applicants had been dispossessed.
