Frederick J. Skeggs

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking declarations and specific performance relating to an easement agreement over the defendant’s lands.

After reasons were released, the parties were unable to settle the order because the reasons did not explicitly address the plaintiff’s request to amend the statement of claim.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to clarify or amend its reasons before judgment was entered, including under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court concluded that the earlier reasons implicitly granted the requested amendments and that no prejudice or limitation issue arose from the amendments.

An addendum was issued confirming that the amendments to the pleadings were granted.

Following summary judgment in a dispute over an easement and related counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff had been entirely successful in obtaining a declaration of a binding easement agreement, a vesting order, leave to amend its claim, and dismissal of the defendant’s counterclaim seeking transfer of land or damages.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs on the basis that the defendant’s conduct was reprehensible.

While the court found the defendant’s conduct deserving of criticism, it concluded the threshold for substantial indemnity costs was not met.

Costs were therefore awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with additional substantial indemnity costs for costs thrown away due to an adjournment requested by the defendant.

The applicant sought summary judgment declaring that a written “Easement Summary” constituted a binding agreement requiring the respondent to grant an access easement over neighbouring lands.

The dispute arose from negotiations concerning road access to landlocked lakeside properties and a related understanding that the applicant would attempt to obtain severance of a waterfront lot for the respondent.

The court held that both the easement summary and severance summary were binding preliminary agreements, but that the severance agreement only required the applicant to use best efforts to obtain approval and did not guarantee a lot or monetary compensation if severance failed.

The court concluded that the easement agreement was independent of the severance process and that the respondent breached the agreement by refusing to complete the easement.

Summary judgment was granted declaring the easement binding, vesting the easement in favour of the applicant, and dismissing the respondent’s counterclaim.