Andrea Habas

The parties, who are siblings and tenants in common of a family farm, previously agreed to an order for its sale.

While the property was listed for sale, the moving party sought to use the farm as she had in the past.

The responding parties objected, arguing that the property should remain unused until sold.

The court granted the motion, holding that as co-owners, each sibling has an equal right to reasonably use the property in a manner that does not interfere with its sale or the rights of the other co-owners.

The court established a schedule for each co-owner's exclusive use of the property pending its sale.

The defendant brought a motion to extend trial procedures, withdraw deemed admissions, and seek further documentary production on the eve of a twice-adjourned trial.

The court granted the defendant leave to file new trial affidavits, deliver late notices of objection, and withdraw deemed admissions, finding that the lapses were inadvertent and the preference is to decide matters on their merits.

However, the court ordered the defendant to pay $50,000 in costs thrown away and $20,000 in motion costs to the plaintiffs as a condition of the relief.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The action involved a claim for repayment of a $161,000 loan allegedly made to the defendants for a property purchase.

The court applied the Reid test and found that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, the deadline was missed through the inadvertence of his former counsel, the motion was brought promptly once the dismissal was discovered, and the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that summarily dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal by a retail store.

The Tribunal had found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to point to evidence establishing a link between the store's actions and his race or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were transparent, intelligible, and fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicant sought a declaration that it possessed a prescriptive easement permitting use of a private laneway over the respondent’s property to access parking at the rear of its premises.

The claim relied on alleged continuous and uninterrupted use by the applicant’s predecessors in title for over 20 years before the lands were converted to the Land Titles system.

The court reviewed the principles governing prescriptive easements and the doctrine of lost modern grant, emphasizing the requirement that use be “as of right” rather than permissive.

The evidence established long-standing use of the laneway but did not demonstrate that the use occurred without permission or that the servient owner acquiesced to an asserted right.

The court concluded the use was more consistent with a neighbourly licence than a legally enforceable easement.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the record raised legitimate issues for trial regarding coercion and legitimacy, specifically concerning the appellant's state of mind when signing a guarantee, the nature of the demand, and the options available to him.

Because the facts relevant to these issues were in dispute, a trial was warranted.

The appeal was allowed with costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant entered into a mortgage agreement that included a profit-sharing scheme.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the scheme constituted a criminal interest rate under s. 347 of the Criminal Code.

The Court also held that s. 347 is intra vires the Parliament of Canada and does not unconstitutionally infringe on provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.