Andrea M. Mannell

The Township of West Lincoln brought a motion under Rule 38.11 to set aside a consent order declaring a watercourse on the applicants' property to be a navigable waterway, which effectively created a natural severance.

The Township argued it was an affected person because the order bypassed its planning authority over lot creation and impacted a demolition agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Township's statutory planning authority and contractual agreements did not constitute a proprietary or economic interest required to give it standing as an affected person under Rule 38.11.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application where the applicants sought a declaration of adverse possession over disputed lands.

The court previously granted the applicants ownership of a portion of the lands (Common Grounds) but not the entirety.

The respondent, deemed the successful party for costs, sought substantial indemnity costs for both the current and a prior related application.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, finding that the respondent's offers to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49.10 and that the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The parties were ordered to equally share the costs of implementing the judgment.

The applicants sought ownership by adverse possession of a triangular parcel of land ("Disputed Lands") on their property's eastern border.

The respondent, the registered owner of the adjoining property, conceded a portion of these lands ("Common Grounds") but disputed the remainder.

The court found that the applicants established adverse possession of the "Common Grounds" due to their continuous, open, and exclusive use, and the mutual mistake regarding ownership.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish adverse possession of the balance of the "Disputed Lands." The judgment declared the applicants as lawful owners of the "Common Grounds" and ordered the necessary land registry amendments.

This is a motion to review the decision of Justice M.L. Benotto dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal panel found that Benotto J.A. applied the correct test and saw no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding failed contracts of purchase and sale for condominium units, the successful respondent sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $42,000.

The applicants argued no costs should be awarded as the application was not vexatious.

The court rejected the applicants' argument, finding the respondent was prima facie entitled to costs.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court found the requested amount excessive and fixed partial indemnity costs at $22,386.23 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought a declaration that "Reservation Agreements" for condominium units were binding contracts and that the respondent engaged in bad faith bargaining by proposing inconsistent terms in subsequent draft agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the Reservation Agreements were not binding contracts because they lacked essential terms, specifically the precise identification and location of the condominium units, and indicated that further terms (like down payment) needed to be agreed upon.

The court also noted that the Planning Act prohibited offering land for sale prior to plan approval at the time the agreements were made.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.