Ryan J. M. Androsoff

The Court allowed the appeal and held that proprietary estoppel can bind a promisor who lacked ownership at the time of the promise if the promisor later acquires a sufficient interest in the property.

The majority upheld findings that the appellant reasonably relied to his detriment on his sister’s promise regarding her eventual one-third interest in the family home.

The Court ordered relief tailored to the equity by permitting purchase of the sister’s one-third share at fair market value as of when the appellant would reasonably have expected to buy it.

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.