The plaintiff sought a permanent right of way for a laneway encroachment, possessory title to a house and yard area by adverse possession, and a permanent right of way for a cedar pathway.
The defendants disputed these claims, arguing lack of continuous use, permission, and technicalities in pleadings.
The court found a mutual mistake regarding the boundary line, which negated the need for the plaintiff to prove intent to exclude the true owner for adverse possession.
The plaintiff succeeded on all three claims, establishing a prescriptive right for the laneway, possessory title for the house and yard, and a prescriptive right for the cedar trail.
The court ordered the preparation and registration of reference plans to detail the new property boundaries and rights of way, with costs of the reference to be shared equally due to the mutual mistake.
