Gene Chiarello

This action concerned a boundary dispute where the plaintiff claimed ownership of an 8-foot strip of land by adverse possession.

The properties were converted to the land titles system on June 16, 2003, requiring the plaintiff to prove 10 years of adverse possession by her predecessors in title prior to that date.

The court found insufficient evidence of open, notorious, constant, continuous, peaceful, and exclusive possession by the plaintiff's predecessors.

Crucially, the existence of a wooden fence built by a predecessor on the surveyed lot line, rather than the informal 'paddock fence' relied upon by the plaintiff, indicated knowledge of the true boundary.

The plaintiff's claim for adverse possession was dismissed with costs.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale following a hearing before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding the use of bird bangers.

The Board found that the applicants and their representative engaged in bad faith and vexatious conduct by attempting to malign the character of the respondent, which necessitated an adjournment and caused significant delay.

The Board ordered the applicants to pay $8,000 in costs to the respondents.

The applicants, neighbours of a sweet corn farm, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board alleging that the noise from propane-fired bird bangers used by the respondents directly affected them.

The Board found that the noise constituted a disturbance that unreasonably interfered with the applicants' use and enjoyment of their properties.

The Board determined that the respondents' past use of the bird bangers was not a normal farm practice, but ordered that the practice could continue if modified to comply with specific best management practices regarding setbacks, timing, and monitoring.

Purchasers repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a newly constructed custom home before completion and sought return of their deposit.

The vendor builder accepted the repudiation, completed construction with design changes, and later sold the property to another purchaser at a lower price after a lengthy marketing period.

The court held that damages for breach of contract are determined using the expectation measure, placing the innocent party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed.

The purchasers failed to prove that the builder acted unreasonably in mitigating its losses by completing construction and marketing the home.

Judgment was granted on the builder’s counterclaim for damages including carrying costs, financing costs, commission, and price differential.

The applicant, a former student, sought an interim remedy to be readmitted to the respondent university for the Fall 2015 semester, alleging his mental health would deteriorate otherwise.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the extraordinary remedy or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to deliver all arguably relevant documents to the applicant.

Four applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to facilities on the basis of gender identity and discrimination by association.

Three of the applicants, who identify as transgendered, were assisting the fourth applicant at her vendor booth at a market.

The market owner and manager objected to their presence, ultimately issuing an ultimatum to the vendor to either remove the transgendered individuals or leave the market.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent and its owner discriminated against the applicants.

The manager was removed as a personal respondent because he was merely following orders.

The Tribunal awarded a total of $40,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but dismissed claims for lost income due to lack of evidence.

Non-monetary remedies including human rights training and policy review were also ordered.