Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada's defence : Doesn't anyone care?
Message-ID: <2015@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 13:32:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.2015
Posted: Thu Sep  5 13:32:59 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 15:15:36 EDT
References: <833@utcs.UUCP> <764@lsuc.UUCP> <5906@utzoo.UUCP> <774@lsuc.UUCP> <1952@mnetor.UUCP> <3501@garfield.UUCP> <2005@mnetor.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 41
Keywords: Polar Sea Incident: Why?
Summary: 

In article <2005@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
>In article <3501@garfield.UUCP> robertj@garfield.UUCP (Robert Janes) writes:
>>In article <1952@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes:
>>>    Furthermore, there was no need to do much.  The US gave us a
>>>letter, according to Macleans, that states that the voyage in no
>>>way affects Canada's claims on the area. 
>>>....  The only problem was that the press blew 
>>>everything out of proportion in order to improve their ratings.
>.....
>    Having said all that, I just want to point out that all this fuss
>over the Polar Sea seemed to lead many people to think that our
>claims to that area had been sucessfully challanged. With the exception
>of Macleans, I saw no mention of letters exchanged between the US
>and Canada stating that the voyage in no way affected the validity
>of our claim.

Though I think that the Polar Sea incident was mainly a Media blow-up,
you should consider one thing about Canadian Common Law (I'm sure
that the lawyers out there will correct the precise details) that
may have a bearing.

If a person has some property, and someone else decides to create
a thoroughfare [eg: footpath at a cottage] or make use of some of the
property, where that use has not been contested [eg: cease-and-desist
order, calling in the cops etc., kicking said person off] for a period 
of time [I seem to remember that it is 10 years], the owner of the 
property loses at least part (if not all) of his property rights to 
that section used.

This came up at my Grandfather's cottage.  Some years ago we had the
occasional person cut a corner through his property.  We didn't mind
it much, but we had been advised that we should prevent such use, because
after the time period has expired, unless some contract exists to the
contrary, he'd lose ownership of part of his property.

Partially related to some sort of "squatter's" right legislation I
expect.
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321