Christopher Ryan Bodnar

The applicants and respondents own properties near Mississippi Lake.

The respondents, who own a backlot property, share a registered easement over the applicants' waterfront property for 'lake access'.

The respondents installed a large seasonal dock at the end of the easement.

The applicants sought declarations and an injunction to remove the dock.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the easement was limited to pedestrian passage and did not permit the installation of a dock or storage of items.

The Court also found that the dock interfered with the applicants' riparian rights to access navigable waters.

The Court granted declaratory relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting the respondents from placing a dock at the terminus of the right of way.

A second mortgagee sought leave to issue a Writ of Possession and an order that the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 does not apply to the mortgaged property pursuant to section 5(i) of that Act.

The mortgaged property had multiple occupants sharing kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether section 5(i) applied and that notice must be given to the owner and tenants before such a determination could be made, as it would affect their rights under the RTA.

The motion was adjourned pending service on the owner and tenants and further submissions.

The court considered a failed real estate transaction for a commercial property, where the plaintiff sought rescission and return of a $50,000 deposit after discovering outstanding work orders for a fuel tank.

The defendants counterclaimed for forfeiture of the deposit and damages.

The court found that the defendants repudiated the agreement, the plaintiff accepted the repudiation, and the defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining the deposit.

The court ordered the return of the deposit and dismissed all other claims.

The moving defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and for being improperly pleaded.

The plaintiffs failed to file materials or appear at the hearing.

The court found the claim lacked clarity, failed to specify causes of action against specific defendants, and amounted to an abuse of process.

Additionally, the corporate plaintiffs were in default of their annual filings, and plaintiffs' counsel failed to confirm his authority to commence the proceeding.

The motion was granted, and the claim was struck in its entirety against the moving defendants.

The applicants, owners of abutting properties, brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a trail known as Neva Road East is their lawful property and that a municipal by-law granting ownership to the respondent township is invalid.

The township argued the trail is a municipal road established through historical dedication and acceptance.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts regarding actual notice, historical use, and representations made to the applicants were in dispute and could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The defendants, T-Bay Movers Corporation and Konrad Kuhne, moved for partial summary judgment on their counterclaim against the plaintiff, Sean Bouttell, seeking specific performance of a "Second Contract" to unwind a previous share purchase agreement.

The plaintiff argued that the email exchanges did not constitute a binding contract and raised issues of illegality and non-compliance with the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the email exchanges clearly evidenced a meeting of the minds, forming a binding "Second Contract." The plaintiff's arguments regarding the conditional nature of the agreement and illegality were rejected due to lack of credible evidence.

The court granted specific performance to the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety, as it was premised on the non-existence of the "Second Contract."