Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Property Law Midterm Notes

Law Notes > Property Law Notes

This is an extract of our Property Law Midterm document, which we sell as part of our Property Law Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of Victoria; University Of Toronto students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

1

PROPERTY MIDTERM: CONDENSED OUTLINE Remember to:
-state the legal issue at the outset
-start w/ CL but remember that statute trumps CL > refer back to actual statute, not notes
-acknowledge counter arguments and complexities but a pick a perspective TOPIC Defining Property p. 2

Functions of Property Law p. 2 Historical Perspective p. 5

Divisions of Property Law p. 6

PRINCIPLES AND CASES
-Ziff- a bundle of rights good "against the world;" reflect social values
-attributes/ essentialism- looking for likeness based on attributes, traditional
-Moore, Victoria, INS, Calder, dissent in Yanner
-functional/ nominalism- policy approach based on social function, fluid, judicial discretion, adaptable
-majority in Yanner; minority in Carswell
-Cohen: involves duties and rights as opposed to an object; dependent on state framework for enforcement of right to exclude
-Posluns- concept of boundaries and property is culturally contingent, reflects relationships of power
-Rose- importance of yelling and labour (Monsanto, Moore, INS, dissent in Victoria Park)
-Yanner > distinction bw control and ownership
-'quasi property:' expires, is only good against competitor (INS)
-regulates rights of property owners
-promotes economic efficiency thru reducing transaction costs
-assesses novel claims (addresses fluid nature of def property)
-historically teneurial but statute in 1665 abolished all forms except free and common socage (continues today, socage is directly to the crown); at this point inheritance rights developed (concept of right "against the world" develops)
-we conceive we own land allodially but this is false as it is in fee simple w/ crown as true owner in form of estate
-s. 2 Law and Equity Act-UK law transplanted to Can except if 1) if law was enacted prior to 1885; 2) if inapplicable to local context (e.g. water maxim) 3) if UK law would be modified by legis validly passed
-realty vs. personalty
-realty> corporeal vs. non corporeal (intangible) hereditaments
-personalty> chose in possession or action (intangible)
-line bw 2 blurred contemporarily
-can be exchanged > equitable doctrine of conversion, can exist even w/o physical exchange (contemplates future exchange will

2

Fixtures p. 14

Constitution al Protection of Property p. 6 Expropriatio n p. 7

Above and Below Boundaries p. 9

Land Boundaries p. 10

occur, still relevant for testamentary gift)
-buyer and seller can determine what is a fixture but this is not binding absent of a fixtures notice- must look to law of fixtures
-to determine if it is a fixture or chattel, objective test if objective person would perceive it to be part of the sale of land, or is it better used as a chattel?
-prima facie characterization: if attached even slightly = fixture (Stack v. Eaton), but if it is unclear look to degree and object (purpose) of annexation. If permanent, supports it is a fixture, intention of person affixing not relevant (La Salle)
-tenant's fixtures can be removed if they 1) are not a protected fixture; 2) removal will not cause DM; 3) detachment does not violate K; 4) timely removal
-fed- under trade, commerce, bankruptcy, reserves, POGG, etc.
-prov- P/CR, local matters, wood, minerals
-shared- enviro
-no constitutional protection of property, incl expropriation in CHcontrast to US and AU
-Constructive taking- interpretation of Expropriation Act: 1) acquisition by the govt of beneficial interest in property (distinguished from interest in it); 2) removal of all rights of usage; no public purpose or diminishment in value is required (contrast to US) (Mariner, CPR)
-legislative schemes compensating expropriation can be overridden by statute
-de facto taking- govt reg to the point where it arguably =
appropriation bc of diminished value in land and compromises usage (Penn, Lucas, not really protected in Can)
-exception for Amn style takings in Can: under s. 1110 of NAFTA (Abitibi, Metaclad)
-mostly governed by legislation, maxim of absolute ownership applied in a limited way by courts
-airspace- included in ownership of land, treated as possessory; open to protection through an action to trespass- need to demonstrate infringement of reasonable use and enjoyment of property (Bernstein)
-Land Title Act, s. 141- airspace is subdividable
-below the surface- rights are absolute (Edwards v. Sims)
-mines and minerals- CL grant of land historically carries grant of minerals but this is overridden by s. 50 of the Land Act- most minerals = crown
-usually lateral boundary clear and stated in title
-if not look to natural monuments, ct can order remedy in terms of encroachment as per s. 36 Prop Law Act
-support of land: owner is entitled to support in its natural state

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Property Law Notes.