When squatters strike

Alberta squatters law allows people to be legal owners of land if they have been in open possession of it for 10 or more years

Bob Woodward can see the 10-acre parcel of ranchland from his kitchen window.

It is land west of Cardston, Alta., that he bought in 1999, for which he had legal title and on which he has paid taxes every year since it was purchased.

So Woodward was flabbergasted when a judge ruled in December that the land belonged to his neighbour.

The decision was based on Alberta law involving adverse possession, more commonly known as squatter’s rights.

It allows people to be recognized as legal owners of land if they have been in open possession of it for 10 or more years.

Alberta is the only province to retain the legislation, which is based on British common law but has been struck from the books in other provinces.

“I think that the rural people need to be made aware that this old act is still in the works and that if you have unscrupulous people looking for an opportunity like that, they can take advantage of that old law,” said Woodward, a longtime rancher who owns 2,400 acres.

“Even though you’ve bought a piece of property and paid for it and paid the taxes on it and everything, if they squat on it, even if you know that they’re there and more or less acknowledge, or in other words put up with them, if you let them do it for 10 years, they can turn around and claim your property.”

Woodward said he thought twice about going to court but decided to proceed when his neighbours gave notice in 2011 of a suit to claim the 10-acre piece of land, which he estimated to be worth $3,000 per acre.

“It’s kind of a matter of principle, but as it turned out, it didn’t do us any good.”

He and his lawyer, Douglas Carle, were surprised at the outcome, and an appeal has since been filed with the Alberta Court of Appeals.

Carle said adverse possession is a throwback to an era before Canada adopted the Torrens land titles system based on registered titles and accurate surveys.

“I think that it is actually quite puzzling that a jurisdiction such as ours … would even have a concept of adverse possession,” said Carle.

ADVERTISMENT

“It’s an archaic concept that causes nothing but hardship and flies in the face of our entire land titles system.”

Carle, who practises out of Taber, Alta., said the outcome of Woodward’s case should serve as a warning.

“What should be very chilling to farmers and landowners in Western Canada is the notion that you can let your neighbours … have access and use of your land, but you run the risk of them taking the land from you.

“I know many, many clients in southern Alberta who are good neighbours, who would never dream that their next door neighbour or their down-the-road farming companion would end up taking their land, but it’s something that farmers, especially farmers, need to think of.”

Alberta legislators gave two readings to a bill in 2012 that would have struck adverse possession from provincial law, but it died on the order paper when a provincial election was called.

Bill 204, brought forward by Ken Allred, then the Progressive Conservative MLA for St. Albert, would have abolished all mention of the adverse possession doctrine.

Alberta Liberals are also on record as supporting the move at the time.

As reported in Hansard, Allred said the legislation was outdated and its abolition “would assure Alberta landowners that they will not be at risk of losing land to a neighbour who has accidentally or intentionally been trespassing on their property.”

Allred, who did not stand for re-election in 2012, is a former land surveyor.

He told the legislature at the time that about 100 court cases in Alberta had involved adverse possession but few were successful because of the province’s “efficient land titles system.”

It was Allred’s contention that squatter’s rights should never have been adopted from the English system in the first place because Alberta was surveyed before settlement, as opposed to Britain’s settlement before survey.

Adverse possession caused the City of Calgary to lose land in 1965 and irrigation districts to lose land in 1993.

ADVERTISMENT

After that, the government amended legislation to exempt municipalities and irrigation districts from future claims on that basis.

The provincial property act allows people to claim land on which they have mistakenly built lasting improvements. However, that person must pay the landowner compensation for the property lost.

Woodward said he wants the current government to take action.

“I say at the stroke of a pen, the government could change this thing, and they need to do it.

“I say shame on Alberta for hanging onto this thing when all the other provinces in Canada have thrown it out. I want these legislators to do something about it.”

Individuals should be free of it, just as irrigation districts and municipalities are, he added.

Carle said he thinks the government may be considering changes.

Drew Barnes, Wildrose MLA for Cypress Medicine Hat, said he would be happy to examine the pros and cons of the legislation at the next legislative session, set to begin March 10.

“Property rights are the bedrock of a democratic society,” said Barnes.

“Property rights allow individuals to know where their rights begin and where the government’s rights end. So any infringement on an individual’s property rights would be of great concern to me.”

Carle said he has discussed adverse possession with some of his farmer clients and generally advises landowners to confirm their ownership in cases where neighbours are using their land.

“It has certainly caught the fear and imagination of southern Albertans,” said Carle, adding that the case was one of the more interesting he has tackled in 26 years of practice.

ADVERTISMENT

“I’ve always told clients that 99.9 percent of the time, an issue can be decided merely by an application of common sense…. This is that point one percent of the time.”

  • FarmerDan

    I would be interested to learn what Drew Barnes sees as the pros of legislation that acknowledges squatters rights.

  • Martin

    I find it ridiculous that a 200 year old law from our mother country is still being enforced. If it was on the books but ignored I could understand but the people in the “know” and in the authority should also be telling squatters to find a better solution. I hope this gets struck down hard by a higher court and the province and the squatter can share the true owner’s legal expenses.

    • Dwight St. John

      “Notanother” issue of the crowd in the legislature, almost all of whom are lawyers, missed the issue entirely. No wonder Alberta elected a bunch of texting iPhone tweenagers. Might as well give them a shot at paying attention. The expensive suits sure seem to be missing the issues.

  • Stay alert….stay alive.
    Ignorance of the law is no excuse and “He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it”.
    Strike 1 for the registered owner.
    Texas has the same concept.
    Alberta probably got it from them.

  • Dusty

    Hmmm, what happened to the other side of the story? You guys didn’t seem to care about that.

  • puskwakau

    Good to know that lawyer’s name, and avoid him for not knowing this ‘practised’ action.

  • Eric Wright

    What about when siblings, through subterfuge, get your name removed from land that for 15 your grandmother has been telling you “you can live there as long as you want “? Removing Squatters’ rights could mean an eviction from your home.

  • B Christianson

    I must be sick in the head; I like surface rights law. Assuming that my surface rights law training was correct, the remedy is this: The titled owner must send a registered
    letter to the squatter every year stating that the squatter is living on the
    land at their (The title holder’s) pleasure. And send a copy to your lawyer or
    keep a copy in your files. If this is done at the start of each year, the
    squatter has no ammunition to make a case for adverse possession. If the title
    holder allows occupation of the land without taking any action in this regard, the
    adverse possession claim may be successful. Of course maybe the best solution
    would be to charge one dollar or one hundred dollars a year in rent in the form
    of a cheque and keep that in your dresser. That may cover it too. BC

  • Eric Barstad

    The Woodwards lost their appeal (with regards to the adverse possession, anyways): https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca91/2016abca91.html?resultIndex=3