CROWN |
Real Property |
Abbott v. Canada
T-1168-96
2005 FC 163, Russell J.
2/2/05
29 pp.
Application for declaration residential leases in Riding Mountain National Park entitled to right of renewal every 42 years in perpetuity--Leases originally granted by Federal Crown between 1934 and 1959 containing options allowing renewal for further 42 years in perpetuity--None of plaintiffs, who have leasehold interest, original leaseholder from that period--From 1965 to 1970, government pursued new policy governing leases in parks--Under that policy, to obtain change in leasehold ownership, surrender of original lease, execution of new standard lease for 42-year term without provision for renewal, required--At time of issuance of statement of claim, all plaintiffs held new leases not providing for right of perpetual renewal--Some of plaintiffs first holders of new leases, others obtained interest through assignment-- Assignment documentation sufficiently comprehensive to create chain of interest between original holders of perpetual leases and plaintiffs, and give them standing to bring claim--Although at time of surrenders, original assignees felt Crown's actions unfair, unlawful, they opted not to pursue legal action but to wait for political solution--Given significant lapse of time, plaintiffs'claim surrenders unlawful, time-barred--Manitoba Limitations of Actions Act relevant limitations statute--Plaintiffs wrongly arguing action not arising until dispossessed of leasehold estate (i.e. when leases expire in 2006, 2007)--Act, s. 26 compelling Court to focus on estate, interest claimed, so that physical dispossession of cottage lot not issue--Here, interest claimed right of perpetual renewal--Plaintiffs dispossessed of that interest when perpetual renewal leases surrendered--Plaintiffs' conscious decision not to take legal action until 1996 made freely, following independent legal advice--Could not now complain that not subject to limitation of action--No evidence plaintiffs encouraged, led to believe by Crown that still had continuing legal interest acknowledged by Crown in perpetual renewal right--Declaratory relief sought in case at bar falling within limitation period because non-injunctive relief, arising out of past (as opposed to injunctive relief designed to prevent future infringements)--Plaintiffs' claim time-barred--Claim dismissed--Evidence legal rights voluntarily, knowledgeably foregone in favour of other (i.e. political) solutions-- Limitations of Actions Act, C.C.S.M., c. L150, s. 26.