The applicants sought a vesting order to rectify a 28-year-old mistake made during the settlement of their father's estate, which resulted in them holding three merged properties as tenants in common rather than separately.
The applicants had previously been denied a technical severance by the City's Committee of Adjustment.
The court dismissed the application without prejudice, holding that while it has jurisdiction to grant a vesting order that contravenes the Planning Act, it must exercise caution.
The court found there was insufficient evidence regarding the City's concerns and directed that any future application must include notice to the City.
