Colleen Hall-Clark

The applicants sought an order under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to retain land on which their garage encroached, believing it was their own.

The respondents sought summary judgment dismissing the application, arguing adverse possession was not established and the Act did not apply.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, confirmed no adverse possession, and applied s. 37(1) of the CLPA, granting the applicants the right to retain the encroached land upon payment of fair compensation to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential property, arguing the current value should be $148,000 rather than MPAC's assessed value of $158,000.

The Board found that MPAC met its initial burden of proving its proposed value using the direct comparison approach.

The Board admitted the appellants' appraisal report despite the appraiser's absence, but gave it no weight because the appraiser could not be cross-examined and the report lacked explanations for its adjustments.

After conducting its own qualitative analysis of the comparable sales provided by both parties, the Board determined the current value to be $157,000.

The Board also rejected MPAC's time adjustment factors due to methodological flaws.

The assessment was reduced to $157,000.

The plaintiff sought enforcement of an alleged promise that a cottage would be left to her by will after she maintained, improved, and paid expenses for the property over approximately 25 years.

The estate denied that any enforceable promise existed and argued the plaintiff’s use of the cottage offset her expenditures.

The court found that the deceased had repeatedly encouraged the belief that the cottage would eventually be left to the plaintiff and that she relied on that expectation by investing significant labour and money into the property.

The court held that the elements of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment were established.

Instead of granting ownership or a monetary award, the court imposed an equitable remedy granting the plaintiff a 15‑year exclusive licence to occupy the cottage subject to payment of taxes, insurance, and utilities.

The defendant mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff mortgagor’s action alleging an improvident power of sale of farm property, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the mortgagee failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value and relied on outdated appraisals when selling the property, while a retrospective expert appraisal suggested a significantly higher value.

The court held that evidentiary gaps, including untested appraisal evidence and unanswered allegations regarding the conduct of the mortgagee’s solicitor, created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court also refused security for costs, finding the moving party failed to establish any ground under Rule 56.01.

Both branches of the motion were dismissed.