Gerard Edward Robert McAndrew

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for a prescriptive easement over a narrow portion of the defendants’ driveway used for parking.

The motion argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate 20 years of continuous use prior to conversion to the Land Titles system, that mistaken belief in ownership defeated the “as of right” requirement, and that the claimed easement area was excessive.

The court held that evidence from neighbours and prior occupants could establish the required period of open, continuous, and peaceful use and therefore raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court further held that mistaken belief in ownership does not defeat a prescriptive easement claim and that “knowing trespass” is not required.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Following multiple related motions arising from construction disputes concerning steel connections at a university project, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The motions involved claims for summary judgment, limitation defences, dismissal of counterclaims, and issues under the Construction Lien Act.

The outcomes of the underlying motions were divided among the parties.

The court held that the mixed results and the procedural posture of overlapping claims justified denying costs to all parties.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action seeking a declaration of entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

The plaintiff was injured when a hoisted vehicle fell on him while he was removing its engine as part of dismantling the vehicle for parts.

The court considered whether the incident constituted an "accident" within s. 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applying the purpose test from the jurisprudence interpreting the use or operation of an automobile.

The court held that dismantling a vehicle destined for scrap fundamentally changes its character and is not an ordinary and well‑known activity to which automobiles are put.

The incident therefore did not arise from the use or operation of an automobile and did not qualify as an accident under the Schedule.