Court ruling settles years-long dispute over 22-centimetre strip of land

A lengthy dispute between neighbours regarding a narrow strip of land measuring just 21.9 centimetres wide finally went to court after years of legal battles and the submission of 10 affidavits.

In Margaritis v. Milne, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice deliberated on the application of adverse possession doctrine and ultimately awarded the land to one neighbour based on substantial improvements made under the belief that it belonged to them.

Failed negotiations over minor property encroachment

Milne purchased his property in 1996, while Margaritis inherited his in 2017. The boundary between their properties was marked by a wooden fence and stone retaining wall. Following his acquisition, Milne made significant alterations, including the construction of a new fence and retaining wall.

During Margaritis’ backyard redesign plans, a survey revealed a slight encroachment from Milne’s property. Subsequent negotiations failed, leading to the initiation of a lawsuit.

Adverse possession claim rejected

Milne asserted ownership of the land through adverse possession, which necessitates 10 years of exclusive use. However, Margaritis contended that Milne had moved the fence line to its current position in 1996, while Milne maintained that he reconstructed the fence along the original line.

Both properties were converted to Ontario’s Land Titles system in 2002, and land registered in the system cannot be acquired through adverse possession unless the 10-year period occurred before registration. Milne’s usage did not satisfy the 10-year prerequisite before this time.

Due to the absence of surveys, plans, permits, or engineering drawings from before the 1996 renovations, the court could not ascertain the original boundary. Consequently, Milne’s adverse possession claim was dismissed.

Milne awarded land due to sincere belief of ownership

Despite the rejection of the adverse possession claim, the court granted Milne ownership of the land as he had made lasting improvements, such as the retaining wall and stairs, under the honest belief that it was his property. This decision was supported by section 37 of the Ontario Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, permitting an individual to retain land if improvements were made in good faith.

Milne’s genuine belief, along with the enduring and significant nature of the improvements, led to the court’s ruling. Altering the boundary at this point would necessitate substantial modifications to Milne’s property, and the boundary had been in place without issue for over two decades. Additionally, reallocating the disputed area to Margaritis would require extensive renovations to Milne’s backyard for an area deemed “insignificant.” Therefore, Milne was awarded the land but was ordered to provide compensation to Margaritis for its value. The exact compensation method is yet to be determined.

An appeal was denied, with the Divisional Court upholding the original decision, agreeing that the improvements were enduring and that the judge had exercised appropriate discretion.