Victoria Park
no property right in spectacle
o This would most likely not be good law anymore
INS v AP
- news=quasi property (exclude some parties from news but cannot give exclusive acce)
- property in someone’s news story not in facts (except between competitors)
- quasi property to prevent competition
- Knowledge and truth free as the air
R v Stewart
Cannot arbitrarily call this property in essence of the criminal law. In common law it is property and there may be a remedy, by the breach of fiduciary duty.
Moore v Regents
cannot decide something is property if you have not treated it as property
o No property in cells—worried about slavery issues and black market
oCompensation for lack of consent
oMoore did not put forward any work, labour, or effort for the formation of the patent
JCM v ANA
-If the parties treat it as property it is property
-sperm was treated as property from the beginning (donor was paid), and is therefore property
o La Forest hated this
Saulnier v Royal Bank
fishing licenses= property under the statutes
oFishing licenses sufficient to qualify the “bundle of rights”
oHaving sufficient control over how something can be used is sufficient to call it property
oCannot easily take away license (stability)
Harrison v Carswell
- Private space= right to exclude
- Public space= right not to be excluded
- mall was a private space
Committee for Commonwealth of Canada v Canada
airports are quasi public places, they are on the same constitutional footing as streets—same common property as streets
Pierson v Post
To assert possession you need:
1) Clear act
2) Intent to possess
- all the world understands that the pursuer has “an unequivocal intention of appropriating the animal to his individual use”
- Person who brought the animal within the “certain control” gives rise to possession
Young v Hichens
The plaintiff did not have complete control and therefore full possession yet
o Clear act is not always clear—bring in experts
Tubantia
•You can have ownership without custody at the moment
-Possession= sufficient control (subject to context and type of property)
-Manifest intention
•P did all the work they could do to show possession
•Work, labour, and effort
Perry v Gregory
−Court uses expert testimony to be more familiar with customs when needed
−Finders do not give up possession rights unless they abandon their interests
−D waited months to make a claim → lacked clear intention to take possession
Armory v Delamirie
finder had the right of possession against all but rightful owner
Bridges v Hawkesworth
- Store was a public area
* D had no responsibility over them and no knowledge they were there—could not show he had intention to possess them
Elwes v Brigg Gas Company
Boat belongs to land owner
•Policy change: doesn’t matter if occupier knows the things are there occupier has possessory rights of any attachment to land & intention to control land
South Staffordshire
P exercised control over D and exercised a manifest intention to control all things on their land—even if it is unknown that the chattel is there
Hannah v Peel
- an owner who has never occupied the premises of his land has no right to claim an object found lying unattached to that land
- There was little intention to manifest control
- if not loose may have been different
London Corporation v Appleyard
- A servant/agent who finds in the course of their employment is obliged to account to employer (employees have no claim)
- possession of land (occupier)=possession of everything attached
- attached to the building (in wall) and they had intention to control the building (attachment + intention to control= possession)
Grafstein v Holme and Freemans
- possession because he had exercised control of the box when he told his employees where to place it in the basement
- Employment case—important they are employees because they went to employer and asked what to do, they gave up intention when they asking him what to do
Parker v British Airways Board
- Establishes overall the right and obligations of the finder
- Did not relinquish right to possess because he said he wants it back if the true owner isn’t found (demonstrates intention to control)
- Lounge is quasi-public
- Ratio: in favor of the finder because he demonstrated sufficient intention to control
Keron v Cashman
- No one displayed intention to possess until the money was discovered, P had no knowledge of what was in the sock and did not show a manifest intention
- They all played with it
Edmunds v Ronella
Because possession was jointly obtained, the joint finders were entitled to an equal share of the money, a one-third of each share—because its only found when they leave so they are all joint finders
Popov v Hayashi
•Where an actor undertakes significant but incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor has a legally recognizable pre-possessory interest in property. Pre-possessory interest constitutes a qualified right to possession that can support a cause of action for conversion.
-falls under the finding of joint finders
•Joint possession because Popov lost it unfairly
Bird v Fort Frances
- P is a wrongful taker but because owner never came forward he had a greater claim to possession, only a true owner can prove a wrongful taker
- Wrongful taker has more possession over stranger
