Bruce Bussin

The applicants sought a vesting order for adverse possession or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement over a strip of land used as a driveway.

The court found that both parties overreached in their claims and settlement positions, with neither side achieving what they sought.

The court declined to award costs to either party, emphasizing that the litigation was an artificial proxy for a broader neighbour dispute regarding renovations.

No order as to costs was made.

The applicants sought a prescriptive easement over a strip of the respondent's land that had been used as part of their driveway for nearly fifty years.

The court found that the applicants' predecessors in title had openly and continuously used the strip of land for parking and access from 1983 to 2003, prior to the lands being registered under the Land Titles Act.

The court concluded that the easement was reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the applicants' land and granted the application.

Following a successful application for relief from forfeiture involving findings of anti-Black racism, the applicant sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that while the respondents' substantive position was unsuccessful, their conduct during the proceeding was professional and not untoward.

The court also found that an offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $41,790, which the court found to be fair and reasonable.

The applicant tenant, a Black-owned restaurant, missed the deadline to provide written notice to renew its commercial lease.

The tenant made numerous attempts to contact the landlord, which were ignored.

The landlord subsequently attempted to terminate the overholding tenancy, citing a preference for 'family-oriented' businesses and making racially coded complaints about the tenant's clientele.

The court granted the tenant's application for relief from forfeiture and an injunction against eviction, finding that the tenant had acted in good faith, the landlord suffered no prejudice, and terminating the lease would give force to the landlord's unconscious biases.

A case conference was held to set a schedule for the hearing of the application.

The court corrected a clerical error in the respondent's name on consent, set a timetable for further materials and cross-examinations, and scheduled a half-day hearing on the merits.

The interim order allowing the applicant to occupy and operate its business from the premises, provided rent is paid, was extended pending the hearing.