The applicants sought a declaration of ownership by adverse possession over lands owned by the respondent agricultural society.
The application judge granted the declaration, finding that the respondent had abandoned the lands and could not rely on holding them for future development as a current use.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge failed to properly apply the inconsistent use test.
The Court confirmed that holding lands for future development qualifies as a current use during the statutory period, and therefore the applicants' use was not inconsistent with the respondent's intended use.
