Giouroukos v. Cadillac Fairview Corp., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 707
Sotouros Giouroukos Appellant
v.
The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited and Garden Centre Developments Ltd. Respondents
indexed as: giouroukos v. cadillac fairview corp.
File No.: 18182.
1986: November 28; 1986: December 18.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Limitation of actions ‑‑ Real property ‑‑ Adverse possession ‑‑ Commencement of limitation period ‑‑ Disputed land used by appellant and his predecessors in title as a parking area for restaurant for twenty years ‑‑ Disputed land continuously leased during that period except for last eight years ‑‑ Limitation period commencing against owner only when tenancies terminated ‑‑ Respondents' claim to recover possession of their land not barred by Limitations Act ‑‑ Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
Cases Cited
Applied: Corpus Christi College v. Rogers (1879), 49 L.J. Ex. 4; not followed: Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England and Wales v. Rowe (1880), 5 App. Cas. 736.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1983), 1983 CanLII 1686 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (2d) 166, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 595, 29 R.P.R. 224, setting aside a judgment of Van Camp J. (1982), 1982 CanLII 3113 (ON SC), 37 O.R. (2d) 364, 135 D.L.R. (3d) 249, 24 R.P.R. 226, allowing appellant's action for a declaration of possessory title. Appeal dismissed.
Edward P. Belobaba and Christopher Dassios, for the appellant.
Allan Sternberg, for the respondents.
The following is the judgment delivered by
The Court‑‑In reasons delivered by Robins J.A. (1983), 1983 CanLII 1686 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (2d) 166, 3 D.L.R. (4th) 595, 29 R.P.R. 224, the Ontario Court of Appeal exhaustively reviewed the law concerning an owner's inability to sue for recovery of lands while the lands were demised under successive leases. He concluded that the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Corpus Christi College v. Rogers (1879), 49 L.J. Ex. 4, ought to be followed in preference to the House of Lords' decision in Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England and Wales v. Rowe (1880), 5 App. Cas. 736. We are in complete agreement with the reasons of Robins J.A. on this issue, and, like him, find it unnecessary to address the question whether the appellant had otherwise met the requirements for extinguishing the respondents' title pursuant to ss. 4 and 15 of the Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 240.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the respondents in this Court and in the courts below.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Gowling & Henderson, Toronto.
Solicitors for the respondents: Goodman & Carr, Toronto.