Codie Mitchell

The applicant sought a declaration of adverse possession over a triangular strip of disputed land along a shared boundary between two neighbouring waterfront properties on Burlington Bay.

The disputed land was registered under the Registry Act until February 24, 1997, when it was converted to the Land Titles system; under s. 51(2) of the Land Titles Act, the applicant was required to establish actual, exclusive possession for the ten-year period prior to that date (1987–1997).

The court found that a large hedge occupied and effectively blocked access to the bulk of the disputed area throughout the critical period, and that the garage and shoreline were shared in a neighbourly fashion rather than exclusively possessed.

The applicant failed to establish all three requirements of adverse possession — actual possession, intent to exclude, and effective exclusion of the true owner — and the application was dismissed.

The court determined the scale and quantum of costs following previous motions.

Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc. sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing delay and unproven fraud allegations by the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc. The defendants argued for reduced partial indemnity costs due to mixed success and over-lawyering by Primont.

The court found partial indemnity was appropriate, rejecting substantial indemnity as the fraud allegations were not adjudicated on their merits.

The court also reduced Primont's requested quantum due to its unsuccessful abuse of process argument and duplicative work by its multiple timekeepers, ultimately awarding $140,000.00 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc., sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants, Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. and 2373480 Ontario Inc., from dealing with certain land lots, asserting a contractual right to acquire them.

The defendants moved to dissolve an existing interim injunction, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate undertaking as to damages and made material non-disclosures.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions to dissolve the interim injunction, finding them precluded by Rule 2.02 due to significant delay.

The court then granted the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction, determining there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the enforceability of the agreement and entitlement to specific performance, that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm due to the primary defendant's inability to satisfy a damages award, and that the balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction.

The court also found the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages sufficient given the defendants' failure to quantify their potential damages from delay.

The applicant sought costs against the self-represented respondents who unsuccessfully opposed its application for a declaration of adverse possession over a laneway.

The respondents, descendants of the original 1824 owner, opposed the application expecting compensation from the developer.

The court found that the respondents' opposition caused the applicant to incur incremental costs, as the application would have otherwise proceeded in writing.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments that their self-represented status or financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $25,000.

The applicant sought a declaration of ownership over a narrow laneway behind its property, which remained registered in the name of an individual who purchased it in 1824.

The respondents, descendants of the original owner, opposed the application.

The court found that the applicant's predecessors in title had exercised open, exclusive, continuous, and peaceable possession of the laneway for over 75 years, effectively excluding the original owner and his heirs.

The court granted the declaration of possessory title in favour of the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraphs 19-24 of the plaintiff's reply and defence to counterclaim, arguing they were scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious.

The impugned paragraphs contained allegations of drug addiction, spousal violence, and anger issues against the personal defendants.

The court found these allegations to be irrelevant personal attacks that did not clarify the issues in dispute regarding alleged financial irregularities.

The motion was granted and the paragraphs were struck.