The appellant construction company appealed a decision by the application judge who found that the respondents had made lasting improvements to property sufficient to trigger claims under the Conveyancing and Law Property Act, s. 37, and in one case, proprietary estoppel.
The appellant argued the application judge erred by failing to direct a trial of the contested factual issues or convert the application into an action.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in proceeding by application where the respondents had not objected and the factual issues were apparent from the outset.
The Court also found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding the lasting improvements made by the respondents.
