Exclusive Possession (Non-RTA): Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:RTA Exempt Tenancies Category:Eviction (Commercial Tenancy) {{Citation: | categories = [RTA Exempt Tenancies], [Eviction (Commercial Tenancy)] | shortlink =...")
 
Line 9: Line 9:
==MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII)==
==MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII)==


[46] In the end, as I see it, this case turns on the first of those questions, namely, whether Duke and Fanny occupied the property as tenants at will. The answer to that question lies in the nature of the relationship that existed between Duke and his sisters, Mercy and Flora, under the original arrangement by which Duke occupied the property and thereafter, the nature of the relationship that existed between Fanny and her sons, Charles and Warren, under the arrangement by which Fanny occupied the property.


[47] Did Duke and Fanny occupy the property as tenants at will or as licensees?  The distinction between the two legal concepts is important in possessory title claims because a tenancy at will creates an estate or interest in the land, whereas a licence to use the land does not, although it may give rise to contractual rights (see Street v. Mountford, [1985] 2 All E.R. 289 at 291 and Errington at p. 154).
[48] For present purposes, s. 5(7) of the Act only comes into play if Duke and Fanny occupied the property as tenants at will. The right of recovery contemplated by that provision carries with it the notion that either the person or persons seeking recovery, or their predecessors, have conveyed an estate or interest in the land. If no such estate has passed, as is the case where the property is occupied pursuant to a licence, there is nothing to be reclaimed.
[49] What then is a tenant at will and what distinguishes a tenancy from a licensee?  In Ocean Harvesters, at p. 686 Dickson J. explained that “[A] tenancy at will is created when one person permits another to occupy lands on the agreement, express or implied, that the tenancy is determinable at the will of either”. He further observed at p. 687 that “<i>[E]exclusive</i> possession by the tenant is essential to the demise and the statute will not bar the owner unless the owner is out of possession”.
[50] As for the distinction between a tenant and licensee, at pp. 687-88 Dickson J. adopted as correct the following statement of law expressed by Windeyer J. in Radiach at p. 222:
::What then is the fundamental right which a tenant has that distinguishes his position from that of a licensee? It is an interest in land as distinct from a personal permission to enter the land and use it for some stipulated purpose or purposes. And how is it to be ascertained whether such an interest in land has been given? By seeing whether the grantee was given a <i>legal right of exclusive possession</i> of the land for a term or from year to year or for a life or lives. If he was, he is a tenant. [Emphasis in original.]






<ref name="MacKinnon">MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/28gn8>, retrieved on 2022-08-22</ref>
<ref name="MacKinnon">MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/28gn8>, retrieved on 2022-08-22</ref>


==References==
==References==

Revision as of 19:24, 22 August 2022


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 1975
Page Categories: [RTA Exempt Tenancies], [Eviction (Commercial Tenancy)]
Citation: Exclusive Possession (Non-RTA), CLNP 1975, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2022/08/22

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII)

[46] In the end, as I see it, this case turns on the first of those questions, namely, whether Duke and Fanny occupied the property as tenants at will. The answer to that question lies in the nature of the relationship that existed between Duke and his sisters, Mercy and Flora, under the original arrangement by which Duke occupied the property and thereafter, the nature of the relationship that existed between Fanny and her sons, Charles and Warren, under the arrangement by which Fanny occupied the property.

[47] Did Duke and Fanny occupy the property as tenants at will or as licensees? The distinction between the two legal concepts is important in possessory title claims because a tenancy at will creates an estate or interest in the land, whereas a licence to use the land does not, although it may give rise to contractual rights (see Street v. Mountford, [1985] 2 All E.R. 289 at 291 and Errington at p. 154).

[48] For present purposes, s. 5(7) of the Act only comes into play if Duke and Fanny occupied the property as tenants at will. The right of recovery contemplated by that provision carries with it the notion that either the person or persons seeking recovery, or their predecessors, have conveyed an estate or interest in the land. If no such estate has passed, as is the case where the property is occupied pursuant to a licence, there is nothing to be reclaimed.

[49] What then is a tenant at will and what distinguishes a tenancy from a licensee? In Ocean Harvesters, at p. 686 Dickson J. explained that “[A] tenancy at will is created when one person permits another to occupy lands on the agreement, express or implied, that the tenancy is determinable at the will of either”. He further observed at p. 687 that “[E]exclusive possession by the tenant is essential to the demise and the statute will not bar the owner unless the owner is out of possession”.

[50] As for the distinction between a tenant and licensee, at pp. 687-88 Dickson J. adopted as correct the following statement of law expressed by Windeyer J. in Radiach at p. 222:

What then is the fundamental right which a tenant has that distinguishes his position from that of a licensee? It is an interest in land as distinct from a personal permission to enter the land and use it for some stipulated purpose or purposes. And how is it to be ascertained whether such an interest in land has been given? By seeing whether the grantee was given a legal right of exclusive possession of the land for a term or from year to year or for a life or lives. If he was, he is a tenant. [Emphasis in original.]


[1]

References

  1. MacKinnon Estate v. MacKinnon, 2010 ONCA 170 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/28gn8>, retrieved on 2022-08-22