Why the old Chinese hospital project is held up
La Presse has found out why a project to transform the old Chinese hospital in Villeray is held up: the owner of an adjoining building, a notary, has made a claim on part of its parking lot which he says he has been using.
I wasn’t aware that if you use a piece of land for ten years that gives you a legal claim on it regardless of its previous state of ownership. But this item has a sidebar explaining “prescription acquisitive” clearly enough.
Blork 10:20 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
That’s basically “squatter’s rights,” or “adverse possession.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
Kate 10:42 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
Shoe dropped. I’ve walked around that area a lot, and I just reviewed it on Streetview.
The building doesn’t have a parking lot. There’s an alley that separates it from the rows of triplexes on St‑Denis and Drolet, but no open lot. Is this notary basing his claim on having parked his car in the alley beside that building for ten years?
Blork 11:11 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
That alley is wider than normal alleys, and there’s room for about four cars to park (in a line) without obstructing the alley, so I guess that bit of the alley is technically a parking lot.
It’s absurd that the whole project is delayed because of this claim. You’d think that squatter’s rights/adverse possession would apply to spaces where people are actually living, not just where they park their car or dump their stuff.
Blork 11:13 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
Specifically: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fygARiz6pUSdr6Kp7
You can see that the parking area is not the alley (based on the wider part of the building farther in).
Kate 13:28 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
It would take a notary to think of using that strip of land to deny the city the ability to convert that building for dozens of possible residents.
Ian 20:52 on 2025-07-21 Permalink
Pretty wild that some notary can play this hand just for free private parking but when homeless people actually try to squat abandoned buildings they get jail time. Like Audre Lorde said, “.. the master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”
Chris 12:02 on 2025-07-22 Permalink
Not sure that comparison is quite right. Seems he didn’t just “_try_ to squat”, but _succeeded_. If the building owner cared, why didn’t they just call the parking agency and get him ticketed day after day? If a building owner cares about homeless squatting, and never called it in after 10 years, I’m not so sure they’d get jail time as you say. i.e. the difference is not ‘poor homeless’ vs ‘rich notary’, it’s enforcing after a few days vs a decade.
steph 12:46 on 2025-07-22 Permalink
Can the notary actually prove he’s been parking his car there for 10 years? I only see that white car parked there as far back as 2020 (google streetview history)
Ian 13:11 on 2025-07-22 Permalink
@Chris it’s easier to “get away” with parking compared to living somewhere. If that’s all it takes though…
I would have thought that eminent domain would trump this claim but maybe not.