This appeal concerned ownership of a strip of land between riverfront lots and the Ottawa River, and whether the relevant subdivision plan extended the respondents' lots to the water's edge.
The court upheld the trial judge's finding of latent ambiguity and confirmed that extrinsic evidence could properly be used to interpret the deed and plan under the governing property law framework.
The court rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly focused on the original subdividers' intention, made a palpable and overriding factual error, or relied on immaterial evidence.
On the cross-appeal respecting costs, the court held that most individual defendants were properly treated as nominal parties, but found that one individual was sufficiently involved in the litigation to justify a costs award against him personally.
