Proprietary Estoppel in Action: Lessons from Geddes v. Schuerch
Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine whereby, “(i) an owner of land induces or encourages the claimant to believe that they have or will enjoy some right or benefit over the owner’s property, where (ii) to knowledge of the owner the claimant relies on this belief and acts to their detriment and (iii) the owner seeks to take unconscionable advantage of the claimant by denying them the benefit they expected to receive”.[1]
In Geddes v. Schuerch,[2] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently had to rule on a proprietary estoppel claim.
Background
Manuela Geddes (the “Applicant”) brought the action against her father, Werner Schuerch (the “Respondent”), for a judgment that she is the beneficial owner of a plot of land located in Ridgetown, Ontario (the “Property”). The Respondent is the registered owner of the Property. The Applicant has been residing in a house located on the Property since 2013, without paying rent, though she and her family have maintained and upgraded the house during their time residing in it as well as paying a portion of the property taxes. The Respondent lived in a modular home, also located on the Property, between 2014 and 2017 when he then relocated to Switzerland.
The Respondent purchased the Property in 1994 and has been the sole registered owner since. In 2014, the Respondent executed a Will (the “2014 Will”) which directed that the Property be transferred to the Applicant upon his passing. In 2016, the Respondent executed a Codicil to the 2014 Will that removed the provision related to leaving the Property to the Applicant, and, imparting on her a right of first refusal to buy the Property at fair market value.
When the Respondent moved to Switzerland in 2017, he granted a power of attorney for property to the Applicant for the purposes of more easily maintaining the Property in his absence.
In Fall of 2021, the Respondent wrote to his lawyer indicating that he wished to sell the Property to his son, Marcel, for a sum of $500,000. He also indicated that he would further like to give the Applicant a notice of eviction.
Marcel purchased the Property in January of 2022; however, the Applicant has continued to reside in the house on the Property since, and has additionally changed the locks to the modular home that the Respondent had previously resided in.
Analysis
Justice Horvat of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice identified the key issue in this matter to be whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief sought on the basis of proprietary estoppel.
In order to establish an entitlement to relief based on proprietary estoppel, a claimant must satisfy the following elements on a balance of probabilities:
- There existed a representation or assurance made to the claimant, based on which the claimant expects that they will enjoy some right or benefit over property;
- The claimant relies on that expectation by doing or refraining from doing something, and their reliance is reasonable in all circumstances; and
- The claimant suffers a detriment because of their reasonable reliance, such that it would be unfair or unjust for the party responsible for the representation or assurance to go back on their word and insist on their strict legal rights.[3]
Regarding the first element, the court found that a representation or assurance may be express or implied, though it must be unambiguous, and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously.[4]
The Applicant testified that it was her understanding that the Respondent intended to gift the Property to her based on an oral agreement made in 2013. In this oral agreement, the parties contracted that the Applicant would reside in the main house on the Property and would maintain the home in addition to splitting the tax burden with the Respondent. The Applicant claimed that an additional term of this oral agreement was that the Respondent would gift her the Property as part of her inheritance. The Respondent disputed this assertion, stating that the oral agreement only involved the Applicant residing on the Property rent free.
The court found that, while it was true that the Respondent initially left the Property to the Applicant in the 2014 Will, this in and of itself was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate an oral agreement. As such, the court held that there was no unambiguous representation made by the Respondent given the presence of conflicting evidence.
Additionally, with respect to the second element of proprietary estoppel, the court found that any reliance on the alleged representation would not have been reasonable because she was aware of the 2016 Codicil, and she knew that she was not being gifted the Property outright. Furthermore, the Applicant was unable to establish that she had suffered some detriment or loss as a result of relying on a belief that she would inherit the Property since although the Applicant invested in repairs and improvements to the Property, it was greatly offset by virtue of the fact that she had resided on the Property rent free for 13 years.
Accordingly, the court found that the Applicant’s proprietary estoppel claim must fail.
Final Thoughts
Although ultimately the proprietary estoppel claim was unsuccessful, the case serves as a prime demonstration as to how courts will deal with such a claim. For me, the key takeaway here is that the court placed primacy on the fact that the promise needed to be clear and unambiguous. Although the Applicant could have been under the impression that she would inherit the Property, such an impression is insufficient to establish a claim for proprietary estoppel where the promise is not sufficiently unambiguous. Those seeking to make a claim for proprietary estoppel should ensure that they have clear evidence of an unambiguous promise, as general understanding is insufficient on its own to achieve a successful claim.
—
[1] Craig Vander Zee and Saman M. Jaffery, “Estoppel Revisited: Do Promises Still Matter?”, at 12-3 citing J. McGhee, ed.,Snell’s Equity, 30th ed. (London: Sweet and Maxwell) at 637.
[2] Geddes v. Schuerch, 2026 ONSC 3520
[3] Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 754, at paras. 15, 19, 23, 43, 64
[4] Metske v. Metske, 2025 ONCA 418 at para 46
Written by: Mark Polese
Posted on: July 29, 2026
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Proprietary estoppel is an equitable doctrine whereby, “(i) an owner of land induces or encourages the claimant to believe that they have or will enjoy some right or benefit over the owner’s property, where (ii) to knowledge of the owner the claimant relies on this belief and acts to their detriment and (iii) the owner seeks to take unconscionable advantage of the claimant by denying them the benefit they expected to receive”.[1]
In Geddes v. Schuerch,[2] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently had to rule on a proprietary estoppel claim.
Background
Manuela Geddes (the “Applicant”) brought the action against her father, Werner Schuerch (the “Respondent”), for a judgment that she is the beneficial owner of a plot of land located in Ridgetown, Ontario (the “Property”). The Respondent is the registered owner of the Property. The Applicant has been residing in a house located on the Property since 2013, without paying rent, though she and her family have maintained and upgraded the house during their time residing in it as well as paying a portion of the property taxes. The Respondent lived in a modular home, also located on the Property, between 2014 and 2017 when he then relocated to Switzerland.
The Respondent purchased the Property in 1994 and has been the sole registered owner since. In 2014, the Respondent executed a Will (the “2014 Will”) which directed that the Property be transferred to the Applicant upon his passing. In 2016, the Respondent executed a Codicil to the 2014 Will that removed the provision related to leaving the Property to the Applicant, and, imparting on her a right of first refusal to buy the Property at fair market value.
When the Respondent moved to Switzerland in 2017, he granted a power of attorney for property to the Applicant for the purposes of more easily maintaining the Property in his absence.
In Fall of 2021, the Respondent wrote to his lawyer indicating that he wished to sell the Property to his son, Marcel, for a sum of $500,000. He also indicated that he would further like to give the Applicant a notice of eviction.
Marcel purchased the Property in January of 2022; however, the Applicant has continued to reside in the house on the Property since, and has additionally changed the locks to the modular home that the Respondent had previously resided in.
Analysis
Justice Horvat of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice identified the key issue in this matter to be whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief sought on the basis of proprietary estoppel.
In order to establish an entitlement to relief based on proprietary estoppel, a claimant must satisfy the following elements on a balance of probabilities:
Regarding the first element, the court found that a representation or assurance may be express or implied, though it must be unambiguous, and must appear to have been intended to be taken seriously.[4]
The Applicant testified that it was her understanding that the Respondent intended to gift the Property to her based on an oral agreement made in 2013. In this oral agreement, the parties contracted that the Applicant would reside in the main house on the Property and would maintain the home in addition to splitting the tax burden with the Respondent. The Applicant claimed that an additional term of this oral agreement was that the Respondent would gift her the Property as part of her inheritance. The Respondent disputed this assertion, stating that the oral agreement only involved the Applicant residing on the Property rent free.
The court found that, while it was true that the Respondent initially left the Property to the Applicant in the 2014 Will, this in and of itself was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate an oral agreement. As such, the court held that there was no unambiguous representation made by the Respondent given the presence of conflicting evidence.
Additionally, with respect to the second element of proprietary estoppel, the court found that any reliance on the alleged representation would not have been reasonable because she was aware of the 2016 Codicil, and she knew that she was not being gifted the Property outright. Furthermore, the Applicant was unable to establish that she had suffered some detriment or loss as a result of relying on a belief that she would inherit the Property since although the Applicant invested in repairs and improvements to the Property, it was greatly offset by virtue of the fact that she had resided on the Property rent free for 13 years.
Accordingly, the court found that the Applicant’s proprietary estoppel claim must fail.
Final Thoughts
Although ultimately the proprietary estoppel claim was unsuccessful, the case serves as a prime demonstration as to how courts will deal with such a claim. For me, the key takeaway here is that the court placed primacy on the fact that the promise needed to be clear and unambiguous. Although the Applicant could have been under the impression that she would inherit the Property, such an impression is insufficient to establish a claim for proprietary estoppel where the promise is not sufficiently unambiguous. Those seeking to make a claim for proprietary estoppel should ensure that they have clear evidence of an unambiguous promise, as general understanding is insufficient on its own to achieve a successful claim.
—
[1] Craig Vander Zee and Saman M. Jaffery, “Estoppel Revisited: Do Promises Still Matter?”, at 12-3 citing J. McGhee, ed.,Snell’s Equity, 30th ed. (London: Sweet and Maxwell) at 637.
[2] Geddes v. Schuerch, 2026 ONSC 3520
[3] Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 754, at paras. 15, 19, 23, 43, 64
[4] Metske v. Metske, 2025 ONCA 418 at para 46
Author