Chantelle Alexis-Lee Dallas

Metrolinx sought substantial indemnity costs against 1604945 Ontario Inc. following motions heard in February 2021.

Metrolinx alleged reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff's solicitor, including abusive remarks, failure to provide relevant law, and vexatious actions that unnecessarily lengthened proceedings.

The plaintiff argued costs should be left to the trial judge and denied reprehensible conduct.

The court found the plaintiff's counsel's conduct, particularly towards Metrolinx's female counsel, unprofessional and awarded Metrolinx substantial indemnity costs of $47,270.75, reduced by $5,000 for Metrolinx's non-compliance with page limits for submissions.

The plaintiff sought clarification of a previous judgment regarding the specific lands subject to an easement dispute, and moved for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant regarding its construction plans.

The defendant requested production of the plaintiff's full commercial leases.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for further documents, finding the defendant's construction plans irrelevant to whether the plaintiff has an easement.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce its full leases and clarified the geographic boundaries of the subject lands.

The plaintiff, 1604945 Ontario Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Metrolinx from interfering with its use of a "laneway" on Metrolinx's property, over which the plaintiff claimed a prescriptive easement.

Metrolinx, a Crown Agency, intended to use the land for major public transit infrastructure projects.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no serious issue to be tried regarding the prescriptive easement claim, no irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored Metrolinx due to the public benefit and significant costs associated with delaying the infrastructure projects.

The court emphasized that federal railway legislation prevented the acquisition of prescriptive easements over federal railway lands and that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of continuous, uninterrupted use or a proper legal description of the claimed easement.