2 total
The court declared that the respondent had no ownership or easement rights over the applicant's driveway and water well, as historical rights merged through unity of ownership.
The applicant sought declarations that her property had no right-of-way or easement for the respondent's use of a driveway and water well, and an order prohibiting such use.
The respondent filed cross-applications claiming a right-of-way or ownership of the disputed land.
The court found that the driveway and water well were entirely on the applicant's property, and no express, prescriptive, or implied easements existed in favour of the respondent's property due to unity of ownership by a predecessor in title and lack of strict necessity.
The court dismissed the respondent's cross-applications and granted the applicant's application, subject to a six-month suspension of enforcement to allow the respondent to establish alternative access and water.
The court dismissed most claims, finding an existing access agreement could not be unilaterally terminated.
The plaintiff, London Medical and Dental Building Limited (LMDB), brought an action against Middlesex Condominium Corporation No. 83 (MCC 83) and Gannon Medicine Professional Corporation (Gannon) for trespass, nuisance, breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment.
The dispute arose from access through LMDB's building (450 Central Avenue) to an elevator in an adjacent condominium building (440 Central Avenue), which was crucial for persons with mobility devices.
MCC 83 and Gannon brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss LMDB's action and, for MCC 83, to obtain declaratory relief on its counterclaim regarding access rights.
The court dismissed LMDB's action against MCC 83 entirely and dismissed most of LMDB's claims against Gannon, allowing only the unjust enrichment claim against Gannon to proceed.
The court found that the 1999 Agreement granted access rights to owners, occupants, and guests of the condominium, including patients of the commercial unit, and LMDB's purported termination of this agreement was ineffective.