B. Remigis

Following dismissal of the plaintiff's action against a municipality and a police services board, the defendants sought costs.

The defendants' bill of costs totalled $36,963.12 on a partial indemnity basis, but they requested only $5,000 given the plaintiff's difficult financial position and the remote chance of recovering costs.

The court found this request to be a very fair compromise extraordinarily beneficial to the plaintiff and ordered costs of $5,000 all inclusive, payable within 90 days.

The plaintiff was struck by an unidentified vehicle while cycling and sought coverage under his mother's OPCF-44R family protection endorsement.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not reside with his mother at the time of the accident.

The court found that the plaintiff had moved out months prior, was paying rent elsewhere, and only made occasional visits to his mother's home.

The court concluded the plaintiff did not reside with his mother and dismissed the action against the insurer.

The applicants sought an interim injunction preventing the respondent neighbour from erecting a fence across a narrow lane between adjoining residential properties.

The applicants claimed a prescriptive easement over the lane, asserting continuous, open, and uninterrupted use for over 50 years to access the rear of their property.

Applying the test in RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the alleged easement.

The court further held that blocking the only exterior access to the applicants’ backyard and water meter would constitute irreparable harm and pose potential safety risks.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo pending determination of the application.