Catherine Allen

The applicants and respondent are neighbours sharing a mutual driveway subject to reciprocal registered easements.

The respondent erected a fence blocking the rear portion of the driveway and frequently parked at the front, obstructing vehicular access.

The applicants brought an application to enforce their easement rights, and the respondent counter-applied, arguing the easement for vehicular access had been abandoned since the rear garages were removed years ago.

The court found no abandonment, as the applicants' predecessors continued sporadic vehicular use, and held that the respondent's historical parking was permissive, not prescriptive.

The court ordered the respondent to remove the fence and cease obstructing the driveway.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that the offer lacked a genuine element of compromise, as it essentially demanded the defendants either purchase the property or pay equivalent damages.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $150,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, after deducting costs for an earlier consent motion and an unsuccessful summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff corporation entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy a residential property from the defendants.

The defendants subsequently refused to close the transaction, breaching the agreement.

The plaintiff sued for specific performance, arguing the property was uniquely suited as a recreational compound for its principals' extended family.

The defendants argued the purchase was a commercial investment and damages were the appropriate remedy.

The court found the property had a peculiar and special value to the plaintiff and ordered specific performance.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an order to approve a loan and dispense with the consent of the responding parties (plaintiffs) for the loan and future financing.

The moving parties argued that the responding parties' refusal to consent was oppressive and intended to leverage a buyout.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties had not made a claim for oppression and that the court could not use its inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a commercial agreement negotiated at arm's length by sophisticated parties.

Despite the responding parties' success, the court declined to award costs due to their inequitable conduct.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment obtained in India against the respondent for unpaid goods.

The respondent opposed, arguing the expert evidence on Indian law was inadmissible due to bias, the Indian court lacked jurisdiction, the claim was statute-barred, and there was a denial of natural justice.

The court admitted the expert evidence, found a real and substantial connection to India, held the limitation period did not begin until the foreign appeal period expired, and found no denial of natural justice.

The application was granted and the Indian judgment was recognized.

The plaintiff and defendant, siblings, were involved in a dispute over the ownership and management of a family partnership.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's claim was for breach of contract and statute-barred.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking the appointment of a receiver and manager, further production, and an accounting.

The court dismissed the defendant's summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff's claim was grounded in breach of fiduciary duty, to which no limitation period applied under the transition provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no clear evidence of irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy of appointing a receiver, and concluding the requests for production and an accounting lacked a proper jurisdictional basis.