In short:
- In Ontario, under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA), if someone has been exclusively using a piece of land belonging to someone else for more than 10 years continuously, they may claim the legal ownership of that property.
- This is called adverse possession, and it puts the burden on the title owner of the property to take the necessary legal action to reclaim possession of the land during this period.
- Recently, in Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28, the Supreme Court affirmed that the concept of adverse possession applies in a case where a portion of municipal parkland has been in the possession of private owners for decades.
The legal concept of adverse possession, also known as squatter’s rights, is complicated to say the least. It legally allows the transfer of the ownership of the land to someone who has continuously occupied the land without the permission of its legal owner.
Once a significant amount of time has passed, the new occupant of the land may claim legal ownership of the property. And it is expected that the original owner of the land will take the necessary legal steps to retake possession of the land during this period. In Ontario, under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA), the time limit to qualify for adverse possession is 10 years. But this might vary depending on the jurisdiction.
Background of the case
Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28, is an interesting case since the property in question is public land and not private property. The couple, Pawel Kosicki and Megan Munro, are the current occupants of this land, which is part of their backyard, and falls inside their chain-link fence.
The couple bought this property in 2017 on the southeast corner of Lundy Avenue and Warren Crescent, located near the Humber River in Toronto. Behind the property lies a laneway owned by the municipality and a large municipal park on the other side of the lane. Since the purchase, the couple have been paying property taxes on the whole property, including the area in dispute.
Once they learned that the title of the southern portion of their backyard is in the City’s name, they offered to purchase this portion from the City, and their offer was refused. They subsequently filed their claim of adverse possession of the disputed portion. While they bought the property only in 2017, this land has been part of the backyard for the previous owners of the house at least since 1971. This is well above the time limit of 10 years mentioned in the Real Property Limitation Act, and therefore, they do have a valid claim for adverse possession.
Lower court rulings
In Kosicki v. City of Toronto, 2022 ONSC 3473, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the couple’s claim while pointing out that a private individual should not be allowed to fence off a portion of municipal parkland, excluding it from public access and claim exclusive continuous use of the property to qualify for adverse possession.
Their appeal in the Court of Appeal for Ontario was also rejected. In Kosicki v. Toronto (City), 2023 ONCA 450, the Appeals Court observed that the municipal parkland was meant for public use. And if the City was not aware of or ever agreed to its private use, then such public lands must be protected from adverse possession for public benefit.
The couple then proceeded to appeal these lower court rulings in the Supreme Court.
Key observations
In its judgment, the Supreme Court made the following observations regarding the case.
- It is indeed the case that certain categories of public lands have been excluded from adverse possession under the Real Property Limitation Act (RPLA). However, this exception clearly does not apply to municipal parklands.
- This means that the continuous exclusive possession for at least 10 years is the main criterion to qualify for adverse possession under RPLA for the property in question, and this qualification was met at least four decades ago when it was under the possession of the previous owners.
- Therefore, the City’s claim to the ownership of the property was legally extinguished over four decades ago.
- The court also observed that the land title registration system, implemented in 2001, protects public lands such as municipal parklands from adverse possession. However, the adverse possession of the land in question happened well before this system came into effect.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the couple, pointing out that there was no exception for the municipal parkland under RPLA and the continuous exclusive possession for 10 years was the only criterion applicable in this case. The couple’s claim to the ownership of the property under adverse possession was therefore upheld.
How can our civil litigation lawyer help you in such cases?
In such complicated cases, having an experienced civil litigation lawyer fighting in your corner makes all the difference. This is why you need to get in touch with our civil litigation lawyer from the very beginning. With our team of experienced lawyers representing you in court, you can be assured that your property rights and financial interests will be protected throughout.
Reach out to our legal team at 905-405-0199 for a consultation today.
