D. Winer

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement in the nature of a right of way over a private, undedicated road to access her residential property.

The application was unopposed by the respondents, who included a cancelled corporation and an estate.

The court found that the applicant and her predecessors in title had continuously and openly used the road for over 20 years prior to the property's conversion to Land Titles.

The court granted the application, finding the elements of a prescriptive easement were met and ordering rectification of the register under the Land Titles Act.

The owner of leased commercial premises moved under the Construction Lien Act to declare three construction liens invalid and to discharge security posted to vacate them, arguing the lien claimants failed to correctly identify the owner in their claims for lien.

The court considered whether the naming errors constituted non‑compliance with s. 34(5) of the Act or merely a failure to strictly comply curable under s. 6.

The evidence showed the tenant owner had used multiple corporate and unregistered names and had not registered certain business names, contributing to confusion about the proper legal entity.

The court held that the errors—misplacing the owner’s name in the electronic form or naming related Equinox entities—were failures to strictly comply but not fatal defects, and no prejudice was established.

Motions to discharge the liens were dismissed and the lien claimants were permitted to amend pleadings to correctly name the tenant owner.

The applicants, owners of adjacent properties, sought a declaration that the respondents unlawfully obstructed a shared right-of-way by constructing an addition to their home.

The right-of-way was granted for the purpose of vehicular ingress and egress to the applicants' garages.

The court found that while the addition permanently occupied a portion of the right-of-way, it did not substantially interfere with the applicants' ability to access their garages by vehicle.

The application was dismissed, as the encroachment did not constitute an actionable interference with the specific limited purpose of the right-of-way.