Law360 Canada ( September 19, 2025, 3:30 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal which upheld a judgment that adverse possession at common law was unavailable against municipal land. The appellants were the owners of a residential property. Several years after purchasing the property, they learned that the respondent was the title holder of a portion of their backyard, which was enclosed by a chain link fence. The parcel of land at issue had been fenced in by the previous owners of the property between 1958 and 1971. The appellants approached the respondent about purchasing the disputed land which the respondent refused. The appellants brought a claim for adverse possession of the disputed land. The application judge found that the respondent had not established that the property was immune from adverse possession under the “public benefit test” articulated in certain lower court decisions. However, she determined it was nonetheless inappropriate for the respondent’s title to be extinguished as “a matter of public policy.” The Court of Appeal reframed the test for adverse possession of public land and concluded that unless the municipality waived its rights over the property, or acknowledged or acquiesced to its use, such claim would fail. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants argued that the Real Property Limitations Act (RPLA) was a complete code governing adverse possession in the province and applied to all lands, except for those expressly exempted. The legislature expressly preserved matured possessory claims when enacting the Land Titles Act and recognized the immunity of certain public lands from possessory claims. The respondent submitted that the RPLA was not a complete code and recourse to the common law was required to apply its provisions....