Summary
An heir could not obtain reassignment of government bought-in land merely because a previous third-party assignment was cancelled. Preference under RSO 45(4) required proof that the original default was not wilful, resulted from circumstances beyond control and that reassignment was otherwise unobjectionable. Those conditions were unproved, and prolonged inaction defeated the claim.
Issues
- Whether cancellation of a third-party assignment automatically entitled the original owner’s heir to preference.
- Whether absence of notice justified reassignment without satisfying the prescribed conditions.
Provisions considered
- RSO 45(4), Revenue Standing OrdersPreference for original owners or undisputed heirs was conditional on the three prerequisites and prescribed payment requirements, rather than automatic. (¶ 19–25)
Held
- The authority’s satisfaction about non-wilful default, circumstances beyond control and unobjectionable reassignment was foundational. The subsequent notice and reassignment process presupposed those conditions. (¶ 20–22)
- Cancellation of the earlier assignment did not establish eligibility. The plaintiff offered no proof of the conditions, had accepted the original taking and remained inactive for decades; belated willingness to pay did not cure that failure. (¶ 22–25)
- Lack of notice before the former assignment, or omission of auction before later leasing, did not entitle this ineligible claimant to reassignment. Mandatory conditions could not be bypassed judicially. (¶ 24–25)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court judgment decreeing restoration and mutation set aside.