Babylon, a municipality, is the registered owner of 3,000 parcels of land in its area. In a residential area, Babylon owns a plot of grass between the fence of Gugu’s residential land and a pavement. Gugu knows that Babylon is the owner, but extends her garden onto that piece of land and onto the pavement and puts up a new fence that includes both the plot of grass and the pavement as part of her land. She grows potatoes and strawberries on the soil between the fence and the pavement, and uses the pavement for barbecuing and sunbathing. Babylon is unable to monitor the use of all its properties. After a period of 31 years has elapsed since Gugu extended her garden, Babylon notices the extension. Babylon wants the fence demolished and the garden removed. Babylon sues Gugu by demanding that she return the land and, subsidiary to that, that she compensate Babylon.

KEY ISSUES

The reporters must investigate, in addition to the issues raised in Variation 1.1., whether, and, if so, under what conditions, municipal land can be acquired through long-term use. The goal of this case is to determine whether publicly owned land is treated differently from privately owned land. The case distinguishes between municipal land with a public function (here: the pavement) and other municipal land (here: the plot of grass). The reporters are also requested to comment on whether the municipality would have a claim for compensation in case of an acquisition through long-term use.

ALBERTA, CANADA OPERATIVE RULES

Adverse possession of municipal land is expressly precluded by section 609 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act, which provides: ‘No person can acquire an estate or interest in land owned by a municipality by adverse or unauthorised possession, occupation, enjoyment or use of the land’.

DESCRIPTIVE FORMANTS

The case deals with an encroachment on municipal land by an adjoining property owner. But suppose the trespasser, Gugu, was a homeless individual.