By: Gregory French, Mills, Pittman & Twyne.
For more on this topic, see Gregory’s article in issue 45:1 of the Dalhousie Law Journal.
For over ten years, I have practiced law in rural Newfoundland, and I deal with the challenges of Newfoundland and Labrador’s complex and distinct system of real property law on a daily basis. My recent paper, “On the Operation of the Quieting of Titles Act in Newfoundland and Labrador” is borne of this experience and the avenue of resolution created by the Quieting of Titles Act.
The Quieting of Titles Act was once described to me by a Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador as “a relatively obscure act.” It was historically the option of last resort to solve title issues that could not be rectified by other means. In a province where a significant percentage of land is held on possessory title alone, evidence of historical possession becomes harder to get with each passing year. Practitioners of property law will find recourse to the Act increasingly necessary in the coming years. In recent years, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has come out more strongly in favour of the use of the Quieting of Titles Act to resolve boundary and property disputes between neighbours, criticizing the inter partes litigation route for the limited remedies it can provide in the context of title disputes between litigants: Barron v Osmond, 2020 NLSC 131; Knudsen v Williams, 2021 NLSC 85; Jefford v Eason, 2022 NLSC 84.
For those researching the Quieting of Titles Act to understand its operation, there is little information to go on. Unlike traditional litigation, the majority of quieting proceedings begin and end ex parte, without building a body of case law to guide practitioners. The Quieting of Titles Act most often operates within the shadows of the common law, but in these unreported and undiscoverable decisions lies the true operation of the Act for the practitioner. This article is intended to assist legal practitioners in using the Act to its full potential to resolve land disputes. The judiciary may also find this discussion useful to understand the invisible body of jurisprudence that is built upon the operation of the Act in the unreported ex parte context.