claiming crown land

[ricosuave]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=claiming+crown+land

[QuadCityImages]

I like how this thread is the 4th result for me.

[RW99]

Webcrawler is where the cool kids go.

[ken0042]

Ok guys, that's enough piling on. If you do not have something to contribute to this thread; please do not respond.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Adverse Possession might be a place to look at. I believe there was some discussion on it on this forum in November that some of the Lawyers here commented on.

A guy did this in the states with an abandoned home (Home was empty and abandoned for 1 year and the Bank who, supposedly, had the title went bankrupt)...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Adverse Possession might be a place to look at. I believe there was some discussion on it on this forum in November that some of the Lawyers here commented on.

A guy did this in the states with an abandoned home (Home was empty and abandoned for 1 year and the Bank who, supposedly, had the title went bankrupt)...

The guy who claimed to have done that in the States hadn't done a thing, he was a squatter. Adverse possession is possible in very limited circumstances, I highly doubt that it would apply to crown lands.

[Vansmack]

you cannot claim crown land anymore. You can purchase lands or lease mineral rights from crown sales.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Adverse Possession might be a place to look at. I believe there was some discussion on it on this forum in November that some of the Lawyers here commented on.

A guy did this in the states with an abandoned home (Home was empty and abandoned for 1 year and the Bank who, supposedly, had the title went bankrupt)...

The crown isn't bankrupt and holds the title on the land, so adverse conditions wouldn't apply anyways.

Here is what I found under the Nova Scotia website for land claims

The conditions which must be fulfilled to perfect a possessory claim to land are actual, open and notorious, continuous and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the land in a fashion which is adverse to the title of the owner. The onus is on the claimant to prove valid possession of the property by meeting all the above conditions, that is, reliance is placed on the strength of the claim, not the weakness of the owner's possession. Against the Crown, the period is 40 years.
The materials needed to support a claim of adverse possession (click here for definition of Adverse Possession) can be assembled in the following four categories:

1. The factual basis of the claim must be presented in detail by way of a statutory declaration from the claimant and a supporting declaration from an independent third party stating their means or sources of knowledge of the alleged facts;
2. Evidence must be provided as to when the land under claim was first occupied; by whom the occupation was made and the circumstances; the location and nature of fences, buildings or other structures defining the limits of occupation; the conditions of these structures from time to time and the maintenance carried out and by whom; the means of access to the land; the improvements that have been made to land and buildings with appropriate dates and names of individuals and the purpose for which the applicant uses the land.
3. If the applicant claims through predecessors in title, verification of previous occupation by way of statutory declaration.
4. A plan is an essential part of the application. The plan must show limits of the occupation on which the claim is based; the relation of these limits to the original boundaries of the parcel, roads, lands, paths, or other means of entry to the land; the location and description of all buildings; the actual land use such as pasture, cultivated field, garden etc., and any apparent easements, rights of way, or encroachments

http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/land/adverse.asp

You can claim adverse but the conditions are set, you just can't throw up a tent in the woods and make a claim. You have to have worked the land basically, occupied in a open manner over a set period of time, be there for a lengthy period of time, and you can't just be an occupy group,

Adverse possession combines the abstract idea of rights in land with the real fact of occupation on the ground in a manner that is inconsistent with the rights of the true owner. An owner who neglects to exercise his rights of ownership and possession over all his land may lose his right by the adverse possession of another. A trespasser who occupies or squats on land may gain title to it if certain conditions have been met.
The conditions which must be fulfilled to perfect a possessory claim to land are actual, open, visable, notorious, exclusive and continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in a fashion which is adverse to the title of the owner. The onus is on the claimant to prove valid possession of the property by meeting all the above conditions, that is, reliance is placed on the strength of the claim, not the weakness of the owner's possession. Against the Crown, the period is 40 years.
Definition of Conditions:

1. Actual Possession - The land must have been actually used by the claimants without the approval of the owner. The use must be consistent with the nature of the land and in a manner similar to the use a true owner might make of the land. Isolated and separate acts of tresspass do not establish possessory title.
2. Open and Notorious - The use and occupation must take place in an open and visible manner so that others, in particular the true owner, might know of or could regularly observe it. The use and occupation will generally be widely known by others in the area. The degree of notoriety will be consistent with the nature of the area in which the land is located.
3. Continuous - The possession must be continuous for the duration of the statutory period (i.e., daily, weekly, depending on the nature and location of the land). A series of adverse possessors may be linked together to make a continuous period, if previous trespassers followed each other in close succession in an unbroken chain.
4. Exclusive - The possession must be exclusive, not only with regard to the true owner, but also all others. Random acts of possession by various individuals will not meet the exclusive requirement for a possessory claim.

There are several mechanisms for an adverse possessor to perfect their claim, including actions under the Quieting Titles Act, or a claim pursuant to s.37 of the Crown Lands Act.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/land/polic...possession.asp


By the time you squat and then go through the courts, you're broke

[moncton golden flames]

thanks cc.

the 'open and notorious' part seems like it would be the toughest part to successfully accomplish. if the owner of the land needs to see the presence of a claimant, then the owner could have the claimant removed by the police for trespassing most likely, long before the claimant would have a chance to make a claim.

i guess it seems possible, but very difficult and unlikely manner in which to acquire land.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The crown isn't bankrupt and holds the title on the land, so adverse conditions wouldn't apply anyways.

Here is what I found under the Nova Scotia website for land claims

[/LIST]http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/land/adverse.asp

You can claim adverse but the conditions are set, you just can't throw up a tent in the woods and make a claim. You have to have worked the land basically, occupied in a open manner over a set period of time, be there for a lengthy period of time, and you can't just be an occupy group,



http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/land/polic...possession.asp


By the time you squat and then go through the courts, you're broke

There's no need for the actual owner to be bankrupt or to lack title for adverse possession to apply, at least not under common law (which can obviously be altered by statute). That last section you quoted lays it out pretty well, the one thing that people may miss from it is that the occupation has to be adverse, which is why they refer to the occupier as a trespasser. An adverse possession claim is defeated by the simple act of granting permission.

[GP_Matt]

When, during a period of 10 years (1), a person has been in exclusive, continuous,
open or visible and notorious (2) actual possession or occupation of land of which he is
not the registered owner and which is not Crown land (3) or municipal land (4), that
person may apply to the courts to recover a judgment declaring that he is entitled to the
exclusive right to use the land or that he is quieted in the exclusive possession of the
land. (5) The registration of the judgment results in the issuance of a new certificate of
title to the person who has recovered the judgment.

The above is an excerpt from the Alberta Land Titles Procedures Manual (Link below). They are the body that would register your claim. Note the key bold portion stating that it does not apply to crown land. Every province has different rules though. Federal land would also be subject to a different set of procedures.

If you do want a homestead though the government occasionally makes new crown land available for purchase. I think there is a large block (several thousand acres) coming up for sale near Peace River. The land has never been broken so it wouldn't likely cost that much money to purchase outright.
http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/...nual/ADV-1.pdf

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

There's no need for the actual owner to be bankrupt or to lack title for adverse possession to apply, at least not under common law (which can obviously be altered by statute). That last section you quoted lays it out pretty well, the one thing that people may miss from it is that the occupation has to be adverse, which is why they refer to the occupier as a trespasser. An adverse possession claim is defeated by the simple act of granting permission.

I know, but I wanted to put it in because the argument for the adverse possession in the States was that the house was foreclosed on by a bank that went under so unless whoever was handling the bankruptcy wanted to claim ownership he had a pretty simple argument for adverse conditions. The Canadian layout is more specific.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

thanks cc.

the 'open and notorious' part seems like it would be the toughest part to successfully accomplish. if the owner of the land needs to see the presence of a claimant, then the owner could have the claimant removed by the police for trespassing most likely, long before the claimant would have a chance to make a claim.

i guess it seems possible, but very difficult and unlikely manner in which to acquire land.

Not only that, but unless I read it wrong the person squatting on the land actually has to be using the land to the same purpose as the owner. So if they're providing maintenance on the land for whatever reason it sounds like the Squatter actually has to be following a similar script

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know, but I wanted to put it in because the argument for the adverse possession in the States was that the house was foreclosed on by a bank that went under so unless whoever was handling the bankruptcy wanted to claim ownership he had a pretty simple argument for adverse conditions. The Canadian layout is more specific.

I have no idea how they came up with that argument, the status of the rightful owner really has nothing to do with an adverse possession claim, it's about signifying your interest to the world more than anything else. That entire argument was from a 'hey just move into these empty houses and they're yours' theory that seemed to be making the rounds on the web, and somehow people were under the impression it was that simple.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not only that, but unless I read it wrong the person squatting on the land actually has to be using the land to the same purpose as the owner. So if they're providing maintenance on the land for whatever reason it sounds like the Squatter actually has to be following a similar script

I don't think there's any need to use it for the same purpose, as in you don't have to farm it if the previous owner was farming it, but you do need to possess the land in a similar manner in terms of maintaining the land (as in you can't let the fields completely grow over etc.). There can be a lot of nuance and the arguments can really turn on small things. So I guess the moral of the story is that if you're looking to pursue a career in adversely possessing land you're going to want to read up on the case law.

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not only that, but unless I read it wrong the person squatting on the land actually has to be using the land to the same purpose as the owner. So if they're providing maintenance on the land for whatever reason it sounds like the Squatter actually has to be following a similar script

that's what i was thinking. the squatter had to be improving the land equal to or more than the owner he's trying to usurp.

[Cowperson]

When, during a period of 10 years (1), a person has been in exclusive, continuous,
open or visible and notorious (2) actual possession or occupation of land of which he is not the registered owner and which is not Crown land (3) or municipal land (4), that person may apply to the courts to recover a judgment declaring that he is entitled to the exclusive right to use the land or that he is quieted in the exclusive possession of the land. (5) The registration of the judgment results in the issuance of a new certificate of title to the person who has recovered the judgment.

One of my little old lady clients is on the wrong end of this argument right now from a daughter/son-in-law who've been mooching on her land for more than 10 years . . . . . situation south of Calgary.

Seems ridiculous on the surface but the lawyers say she's got a problem. Since I've heard only her side of it, I can't be sure of the details.

Cowperson

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I know, but I wanted to put it in because the argument for the adverse possession in the States was that the house was foreclosed on by a bank that went under so unless whoever was handling the bankruptcy wanted to claim ownership he had a pretty simple argument for adverse conditions. The Canadian layout is more specific.

Yes that is very true. Also it was state specific and a Statute that was only found in that state. This was why it blasted across the news because it was so obscure and he was getting success. Unfortunately copy cats that Valo is talking about are thinking it's Federal and finding out that they were wrong once they ended up in Jail. That was in Florida.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?
Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Yes that is very true. Also it was state specific and a Statute that was only found in that state. This was why it blasted across the news because it was so obscure and he was getting success. Unfortunately copy cats that Valo is talking about are thinking it's Federal and finding out that they were wrong once they ended up in Jail. That was in Florida.

Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?
Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.

The guy in the article that was posted here wasn't having any actual success, he had no record title and no right to remain in the home, all he had was residency and nobody who had any interest in removing him at this point in time. He hadn't established a claim for adverse possession that's for sure, unless of course he had been squatting since 2004, which seems unlikely since the whole point was that it was a home that became empty when the real estate bubble burst.

[Calgaryborn]

I know a guy who staked a mining claim on crown land here in B.C. He then built a log cabin on the property and uses it for recreational purposes. Each year he has to pay a certain amount to keep the claim alive or show that amount of improvements to the claim. It amounts to less than property taxes. I don't know if he has ever tried mining it.