Using Your Neighbour’s Driveway for Decades?

That Doesn’t Mean You Own It

Cassells v. Reid, 2026 ONSC 4359

For generations, Ontario property owners have heard stories of neighbours acquiring ownership of land simply by using it for many years. While adverse possession, sometimes called “squatters’ rights”, still exists in limited circumstances, a recent Ontario Superior Court decision demonstrates just how difficult it is to succeed.

In Cassells v. Reid, the Court dismissed a claim for ownership of part of a neighbouring property despite evidence that the disputed driveway had been used continuously for more than fifty years.

The decision provides an excellent review of the law of adverse possession and highlights the critical distinction between long-term use and legal exclusion.

Facts

The Cassells family had owned and occupied their Woodstock home since approximately 1952.

For decades they used a driveway that extended approximately 1.29 metres (4.23 feet) onto the neighbouring property. The evidence showed that:

an asphalt driveway had existed since the early 1950s,
trailers, campers and recreational vehicles had been parked there for decades,
family photographs dating back to the 1980s and 1990s confirmed the long-standing use,
the asphalt driveway was replaced with a concrete driveway in 2010.

When the neighbouring property was eventually sold, the new owners challenged the encroachment.

The Cassells argued that their family’s continuous use of the driveway had given them ownership through adverse possession.

The Legal Test

The Court confirmed that anyone claiming adverse possession must establish all three of the following elements during the same continuous ten-year period before the property was converted to Ontario’s Land Titles System:

Actual possession of the land.
An intention to exclude the true owner.
Effective exclusion of the true owner from possession.

If any one of these elements cannot be proven, the claim fails.

Actual Possession Was Proven

The Court accepted that the Cassells family had openly and continuously used the driveway for many decades.

Witness testimony, historical photographs and independent evidence established that trailers and recreational vehicles occupied the disputed area over successive generations.

The Court concluded that the driveway had been used in a manner entirely consistent with ownership.

However, the same could not be said for the grassy area behind the driveway, where there was insufficient evidence of continuous occupation.

The Intention to Exclude Was Also Established

The Court found that the Cassells had acted as owners of the driveway:

They paved it.
They maintained it.
They parked their recreational vehicles there.
They treated it as though it formed part of their own property.

These objective actions demonstrated an intention to possess the land as owners.

Where the Claim Failed, Effective Exclusion

Although the first two elements were established, the claim ultimately failed because the plaintiffs could not prove the third and most difficult requirement, effective exclusion.

The Court emphasized an important legal principle:

Long-standing use is not the same as excluding the legal owner.

Several facts proved decisive:

there were no fences or barriers separating the properties,
no gates or hedges,
no physical demarcation of ownership,
no evidence that the neighbours were prevented from entering or using the area,
no assertion of exclusive ownership communicated to successive owners.

Instead, the evidence suggested that both families simply accepted the driveway’s location over many years.

Neighbourly acquiescence is not equivalent to dispossession.

As the Court observed, the absence of complaints from the neighbouring owners did not establish that they had been excluded from possession of their own property.

The Importance of the Land Titles System

The Court also noted that both properties had been converted into Ontario’s Land Titles System on August 22, 2005.

This is significant because, with very limited exceptions, new adverse possession rights cannot arise after land has entered the Land Titles System.

Any possessory rights must have fully crystallized before conversion.

This greatly limits the number of successful adverse possession claims in modern Ontario.

The Decision

The Court concluded:

the plaintiffs established actual possession of the driveway,
they demonstrated an intention to possess it as owners,
they failed to establish effective exclusion of the legal owners.

Because all three elements are required, the adverse possession claim was dismissed.

The Court confirmed that the defendants remained the legal owners of the disputed strip of land.

Lessons for Ontario Property Owners

This decision offers several practical lessons:

Using part of a neighbour’s property for many years does not automatically create ownership.
Continuous occupation alone is insufficient.
Effective exclusion of the legal owner remains an essential element of every adverse possession claim.
Neighbourly cooperation or tolerance is not evidence of dispossession.
Property owners should investigate boundary issues before purchasing a home and address encroachments early rather than allowing them to continue indefinitely.

Considerations

Cassells v. Reid reinforces that adverse possession remains one of the most difficult claims to establish in Ontario.

Even more than fifty years of uninterrupted use could not overcome the requirement to prove that the true owners had actually been excluded from possession.

For homeowners, surveyors, lawyers and real estate professionals, the case serves as an important reminder that long-standing occupation and legal ownership are not necessarily the same thing.