Caitlin Cardill

The plaintiffs, owners of a water-access-only island property, sought a declaration that they held an easement over the defendant's mainland property for parking and boat launching.

The defendant, who operated a lodge on the mainland property, resisted the claim.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a valid express easement was created by a 1952 deed.

In the alternative, the court found that an implied easement of necessity and a prescriptive easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant had also been established.

The court held that the Registry Act did not extinguish the easement, as it arose by operation of law and the defendant's predecessors were not good-faith purchasers without notice.

The court granted the plaintiffs ancillary rights to park and launch boats, but declined to grant dock access.

The plaintiffs sought leave to deliver and rely on an expert opinion from a land surveyor shortly before trial in a dispute over the existence and scope of an easement for access to their property.

The court reviewed the procedural history, including multiple changes of counsel and pre-trial conferences, and considered whether the plaintiffs had a reasonable explanation for the late delivery of the expert report.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided a reasonable explanation and that granting leave would cause undue delay and potential prejudice.

The motion was dismissed.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a determination of claims and counterclaims.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and access to justice, and considering Rule 57 factors, the court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The court found the defendants' claimed hours and rates excessive compared to the plaintiff's counsel, fixing fees at $30,000 plus HST and disbursements at $3957.74, payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The plaintiff son brought an action to set aside an agreement to transfer his house to his defendant father and stepmother, claiming he signed it under duress.

The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the agreement.

The court found the plaintiff was not a credible witness and dismissed the claim of duress, holding the agreement was valid and enforceable.

However, the court declined to order specific performance, finding the property was not unique to the defendants and damages were an adequate remedy.

The defendants were awarded $48,384.72 in damages for loans, rent, and property expenses, and were ordered to vacate the premises within six months.

The applicant, as estate trustee, brought a motion for directions seeking an order for a formal passing of accounts by the respondent for his time acting as their mother's Power of Attorney for Property.

The applicant also sought to have issues regarding a mortgage held in the respondent's name tried jointly.

The court dismissed the motion for a formal passing of accounts, finding that the respondent had already provided extensive informal accounting and the applicant failed to raise any significant concern or specific allegations of misfeasance to warrant a formal passing.

A case conference was ordered to address the remaining mortgage issues.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action regarding an oral agreement for the transfer of land, which had previously been dismissed in Small Claims Court.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding the action was res judicata, an abuse of process, and outside the applicable limitation period.

The court also issued a vesting order on consent to restore the status quo regarding the property.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to remove his mother as a defendant and add her as a plaintiff, with himself acting as her litigation guardian.

The defendant brother opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff was not an appropriate litigation guardian due to a conflict of interest and an acrimonious relationship.

The court found that the mother was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The court also held that the plaintiff was an appropriate litigation guardian, as he had no interest adverse to his mother and the level of acrimony did not interfere with his ability to act in her best interests.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was allowed.

The applicant, Daryl Earl Selkirk, sought costs following a successful application to be appointed sole estate trustee of his mother's estate, with the respondent James Loris Selkirk removed.

The court addressed the allocation of costs, departing from the traditional estate litigation approach where costs are charged to the estate, and instead applied civil litigation principles ("loser pays") subject to public policy considerations.

The court found that James acted unreasonably in part by failing to provide clear accounts, leading to a conflict of interest.

Costs were ordered to be paid partially by James personally (or from his share of the estate) to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, with the balance of the applicant's costs paid by the estate on a full indemnity basis.

A portion of James's costs, deemed reasonably necessary for estate administration, was also ordered to be paid by the estate.

The plaintiff, Hoya Lens Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the defence and counterclaim of the defendants, 2364141 Ontario Inc. o/a Vision Tech Labs Ottawa, Carl Gauthier, and 3531244 Canada Inc., and for summary judgment.

The defendants had repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including non-attendance at examinations and inadequate document production, and engaged in delay tactics.

The court found that the defendants had demonstrated a complete disregard for the judicial system and that ordering re-attendance for discovery would be fruitless.

The court also addressed the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement, concluding that the defendants had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by undue delay in seeking a stay.

Consequently, the court struck the defence and counterclaim and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fees, royalties, and product orders, totaling $235,402.63 and $17,841.29, plus interest and costs.

The client, a lawyer himself, brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order for the assessment of his former law firm's account.

The client argued that the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction under section 3 of the Solicitors Act because the retainer was disputed, as he had been quoted a flat fee but was billed on an hourly basis after his real estate transaction became complicated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the client did not dispute the existence of the retainer or that the work was authorized and performed satisfactorily.

The court held that the disagreement was solely over the quantum of the fees, which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the assessment officer.