Alan Dryer

Following the dismissal of an application regarding the removal of an illegally installed third-party rooftop sign, the successful respondent sought costs.

The applicant argued for no costs or a modest award, claiming the case involved issues of public importance.

The court rejected this argument, finding the legal issues straightforward and not novel.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $20,613.60, finding the amount reasonable for the hard-fought litigation.

The applicant sought to set aside a Notice of Violation issued by the City requiring the removal of a rooftop billboard sign.

The applicant argued the sign was a legal non-conforming use because a permit had been issued in 1959.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the original sign was replaced between 1978 and 1983 without a permit, and further substantial alterations were made in 2013 without a permit.

As the sign was never lawfully erected under the applicable by-laws, it did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use, and the City was not estopped from enforcing its sign by-law.

The parties are neighbours involved in a property boundary dispute over a strip of land between their houses.

The disputed land consists of a Driveway Area and a Backyard Area, both of which are registered to the applicant's property but have been used by the respondents and their predecessors in title.

The court found that the respondents' predecessors had established a prescriptive easement over the Driveway Area through 20 years of continuous, open, and uninterrupted use prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system.

The court also found that the respondents acquired title to the Backyard Area through adverse possession, as their predecessors had exclusively enclosed and occupied the area for the requisite statutory period.

The respondents' counter-application was granted.

A commercial landlord sued a tenant for rent arrears, liquidated damages under a continuous‑operation clause in a lease, and damages for failure to restore leased premises at the end of the lease.

The tenant moved for summary judgment arguing the arrears were paid and the remaining claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that liquidated damages under the continuous‑operation clause were not "rent" within the meaning of the Real Property Limitations Act but were damages governed by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Because the breach was continuous, the landlord could recover only damages accruing within two years before the action was commenced.

The restoration claim was not time‑barred because the obligation arose only upon termination of the lease.