Settled Land Act valid in Canada?

[parzival]

is the Settled Land Act 1925 law in Canada?

from canlii commentary
Unsettled Estates: Manitoba's Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case, 2011 CanLIIDocs 240
Author(s) : John C Irvine
Publisher(s) : Manitoba Law Journal (law.robsonhall.com/manitoba-law-journal/)
Copyright : © 2011, Manitoba Law Journal
License : This work is licensed under the CanLII user license which includes the right of the User to make copies of the work for legal research purposes, in the practice of law or in the exercise of their legal rights.
Citation : John C Irvine, Unsettled Estates: Manitoba's Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case, 2011 35-1 Manitoba Law Journal 49, 2011 CanLIIDocs 240, <http://www.canlii.org/t/2c7v>, retrieved on 2019-09-04

https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/ ... b:search))

if Settled Land Act is valid law in Canada, what is the effects of this act?

part 2

if Settled land act applies, does law of property act also apply (not law of real property) due to the Settled Land Act requiring it and the Trustee Act to apply also?

what is the effect of Law of Property in contrast with Settled Land Act who are life tenants and who are trustees ?
Settled Land Act

19Who is tenant for life.
(1)The person of full age who is for the time being beneficially entitled under a settlement to possession of settled land for his life is for the purposes of this Act the tenant for life of that land and the tenant for life under that settlement.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... section/19

30Who are trustees for purposes of Act.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, the following persons are trustees of a settlement for the purposes of this Act, and are in this Act referred to as the “trustees of the settlement” or “trustees of a settlement,” namely—
(i)the persons, if any, who are for the time being under the settlement, trustees with power of sale of the settled land (subject or not to the consent of any person), or with power of consent to or approval of the exercise of such a power of sale, or if there are no such persons; then

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... section/30

and

3)Where a settlement is created by will, or a settlement has arisen by the effect of an intestacy, and apart from this subsection there would be no trustees for the purposes of this Act of such settlement, then the personal representatives of the deceased shall, until other trustees are appointed, be by virtue of this Act the trustees of the settlement, but where there is a sole personal representative, not being a trust corporation, it shall be obligatory on him to appoint an additional trustee to act with him for the purposes of this Act, and the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925, relating to the appointment of new trustees and the vesting of trust property shall apply accordingly.

Law of property act

1Legal estates and equitable interests.
(1)The only estates in land which are capable of subsisting or of being conveyed or created at law are—
(a)An estate in fee simple absolute in possession;
(b)A term of years absolute.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... /section/1

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Ge ... /section/2 2Conveyances overreaching certain equitable interests and powers.
(1)A conveyance to a purchaser of a legal estate in land shall overreach any equitable interest or power affecting that estate, whether or not he has notice thereof, if—
(i)the conveyance is made under the powers conferred by the M1Settled Land Act, 1925, or any additional powers conferred by a settlement, and the equitable interest or power is capable of being overreached thereby, and the statutory requirements respecting the payment of capital money arising under the settlement are complied with;

law of property seems to get its powers from the additional powers section of the Settled Land Act?

108Saving for and exercise of other powers.
(1)Nothing in this Act shall take away, abridge, or prejudicially affect any power for the time being subsisting under a settlement, or by statute or otherwise, exercisable by a tenant for life, or (save as hereinafter provided) by trustees with his consent, or on his request, or by his direction, or otherwise, and the powers given by this Act are cumulative.
(2)In case of conflict between the provisions of a settlement and the provisions of this Act, relative to any matter in respect whereof the tenant for life or statutory owner exercises or contracts or intends to exercise any power under this Act, the provisions of this Act shall prevail; and, notwithstanding anything in the settlement, any power (not being merely a power of revocation or appointment) relating to the settled land thereby conferred on the trustees of the settlement or other persons exercisable for any purpose, whether or not provided for in this Act, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be exercisable by the tenant for life or statutory owner as if it were an additional power conferred on the tenant for life within the next following section of this Act and not otherwise

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/108

from oxford
Blackstone's Statutes on Property Law 2019-2020
By MERYL. THOMAS
https://books.google.ca/books?id=XZygDw ... 22&f=false

Cheshire and Burn's Modern Law of Real Property

https://books.google.ca/books?id=-XicAQ ... 22&f=false

NO TROLLS OR HELPERS PLEASE!

[Burnaby49]

NO TROLLS OR HELPERS PLEASE!

No concern about that from me. As the sole Canadian moderator I'll keep an eye on this thread since it's purportedly about a Canadian topic but there's no way I'm getting drawn into discussing the shitload of total gibberish that parzival is eagerly anticipating dumping on us.

[parzival]

NO TROLLS OR HELPERS PLEASE!

No concern about that from me. As the sole Canadian moderator I'll keep an eye on this thread since it's purportedly about a Canadian topic but there's no way I'm getting drawn into discussing the shitload of total gibberish that parzival is eagerly anticipating dumping on us.

thats it, what posted is the questions and the info why i ask it. nothing more.

[wserra]

is the Settled Land Act 1925 law in Canada?

I will assume, perhaps erroneously, that you mean this as a straightforward question, and not as a troll for further gibberish. I therefore attempt a straightforward answer. Caveat: I am not a Canadian lawyer. I base this answer solely on two sources - the 2011 Manitoba Law Journal article to which you link and Chupryk (Re), 1980 CanLII 2482 (MB CA).

Answer: unless Chupryk has been overruled, the Settled Land Act of 1925 is not good law in Manitoba. The writer of the journal article clearly disagrees with Chupryk. That and a Metrocard will get him (or you) on the subway.

As to the rest of Canada, I have no idea. Dicta in a Chupryk concurrence indicate that Ontario and BC have similar statutes.

I also have no idea why anyone reading this board would care.

[AndyK]

Appears that we have a case of 'question asked and answered.'

Thus, any attempt by the original poster to throw more pasta against the wall will be met with a spatula to scrape it off.

Excepting any additional legal analysis by people fluent in Canadian law, this should be the end of this thread.

[parzival]

is the Settled Land Act 1925 law in Canada?

I will assume, perhaps erroneously, that you mean this as a straightforward question, and not as a troll for further gibberish. I therefore attempt a straightforward answer. Caveat: I am not a Canadian lawyer. I base this answer solely on two sources - the 2011 Manitoba Law Journal article to which you link and Chupryk (Re), 1980 CanLII 2482 (MB CA).

Answer: unless Chupryk has been overruled, the Settled Land Act of 1925 is not good law in Manitoba. The writer of the journal article clearly disagrees with Chupryk. That and a Metrocard will get him (or you) on the subway.

As to the rest of Canada, I have no idea. Dicta in a Chupryk concurrence indicate that Ontario and BC have similar statutes.

I also have no idea why anyone reading this board would care.

I am glad you pointed out the 2 main issues.

it seems the judge that determined the Chupryk case as using the term not in an exact manner.

which takes us to the question if Canada (provinces) did not write the SLA, yet applies today to specific issues, how and why does this old law take effect today?

However, O’Sullivan JA’s assertion, in the same sentence, that Ontario and British Columbia “have enacted Settled Lands Acts” throws some light on what he is really trying to say. So do his perceptions, expressed in that same paragraph, as to what a proper “Settled Land Act” does, what its functions are. It seems that when O’Sullivan JA refers to “Settled Land” legislation, he is using the expression in a loose or generic sense, rather than as a more meticulously historic (or more pedantic) commentator might do

then the professors goes onto say this...

If that is indeed O’Sullivan JA’s position – that for practical purposes, the English legislation can be regarded as an unevenly-paced but consistent progression, gradually extending the powers of disposal affecting settled land – it is a perfectly coherent and tenable perspective upon the law. But if, taking this inclusive view of what “Settled Land Acts” means, he still says that Manitoba has none, he is simply wrong, as I shall show presently.

then the professor starts going into why the SLA must apply and why.

[Mod redacts ancient law. We're not starting this again. - WS]

[Pottapaug1938]

We beat this horse to death, in the old thread; so what makes you think that we want to discuss it now?

[parzival]

We beat this horse to death, in the old thread; so what makes you think that we want to discuss it now?

actually no, everyone dodged it, and made into something else, then made it into who knows what after that, lol

this is very specific,

[parzival]

please keep to topic or do not post. thank you

[Pottapaug1938]

I have no intention of "keep[ing] to topic". We "kept to topic" far too long, in the original post.

Would you rather have this topic locked, as well?

[morrand]

so the big question is if SLA does apply?

then why does it apply?

No, it does not apply in Manitoba. Chupryk at 22, and explained further at 55. If you disagree, you will need to take that up with the Manitoba Court of Appeal in a suitable action.

The odds that it matters to anything you are doing are very low.

Also: a little deeper in the decision (at 28), I read of the property in question that

Neither unit can be rented out until the owners comply with work orders issued by the City of Winnipeg health department. The cost of compliance has been estimated at $4,620; the work includes decorating, general repairs and structural repairs.

I know little of Manitoba's building codes, but if the health department was demanding decoration, that must have been some ugly wallpaper they had up.

[wserra]

then the professor starts going into why the SLA must apply and why.

Eppur si muove.

[Chaos]

NO TROLLS OR HELPERS PLEASE!

No concern about that from me. As the sole Canadian moderator I'll keep an eye on this thread since it's purportedly about a Canadian topic but there's no way I'm getting drawn into discussing the shitload of total gibberish that parzival is eagerly anticipating dumping on us.

well, to be honest, the OP shoots the thread in the foot based on this criteria.

[AndyK]

To repeat: Asked and answered.

Lock pending.

[notorial dissent]

Follows the opening of the Act in question. Please note highlighted portion.

Settled Land Act 1925
1925 CHAPTER 18
An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to Settled Land in England and Wales.
[9th April 1925.]

Be it enactedby the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

[AndyK]

Let me get this straight.

In 1925, the UK Parliament enacted a law -- The Settled Land Act of 1925 -- which specifically stated that it relates to settled land in England and Wales. Correct?

In 2019, Percy starts threads related to his question /opinion / whatever of that law's impact on arcane and obsolete conditions in Canada. Correct?

Given the above, is there any reason why this, and all similar threads, should not be locked?

Speak now (or at least within the next 24 hours) or forever hold your peace.

[notorial dissent]

I think that pretty well sums it up for me.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Still waiting for Percy to tell us why he thinks he's a house. The loony bin awaits his answer.

[wserra]

Given the above, is there any reason why this, and all similar threads, should no be locked?

None I can think of.

Percy's answer: "Blackstone blah blah blah Domesday Book blah blah blah Coke blah blah blah reception blah blah blah maxims of equity blah blah blah equities of maxims blah blah blah trusts blah blah blah Magna Carta blah blah blah life estates blah blah blah Littleton blah blah blah Holdsworth blah blah blah prescription blah blah blah. Q.E.D."

Andy and Pottapaug: you've been paying more attention than I have. As far as I'm concerned, lock the thread whenever you want. If Percy starts another similar thread: well, I don't see the point of moderation. Every single thing he has posted has been off-topic. Feel free to ban. I suggest a week to start with, maybe he'll get the message.

Percy: we don't like to moderate or ban. But, even if nothing else, your posts constitute a massive off-topic spew. This board concerns frauds, especially of the tax protester and sovereign citizen ilk. No one here cares about what you post. You're welcome to stay. If you must post this stuff, however, please take it elsewhere.

[Pottapaug1938]

I would have locked the thread already; but I can't figure out how to do that. As for Andy K -- in my opinion, the sooner he locks this thread, the better.