Grace Smith

The moving party, an adjudicative tribunal, brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of one of its own decisions regarding property assessment.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the tribunal lacked a statutory right to appear and its participation threatened tribunal impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the established factors for tribunal intervention.

The court found that the tribunal could provide useful context regarding its statutory and procedural framework without engaging in the merits of the appeal or compromising its impartiality.

The applicant sought a declaration that it held an implied easement by common intention over the airspace occupied by a private bridge connecting its properties over a city-owned public road.

The bridge was built as compensation for a 1968 expropriation.

The respondent argued the applicant only held a revocable license.

The court found that the 1973 conveyance of private road lands abutting the bridge evinced a common intention to grant an easement over the airspace, as a mere license would defeat the commercial purpose of the bridge.

The court declared the bridge a fixture to the applicant's lands and ordered the registration of an implied easement.

The City of Toronto sought a declaration that Cloverdale Mall Inc. owned and was responsible for the maintenance of a bridge over the East Mall, or alternatively, if the City owned it, that it had the right to demolish it.

The bridge was built by Cloverdale's predecessor after land expropriation for Highway 427, with the province reimbursing construction costs.

The Minutes of Settlement from 1972 were silent on bridge ownership and maintenance.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the court found that the parties intended Cloverdale to own and maintain the bridge, as it served Cloverdale's private interests and the City's obligations were extinguished upon payment for construction.

The court also rejected the argument that the bridge was a fixture to City land, as its purpose was to enhance Cloverdale's property, not the City's.

The application was granted in favour of the City, with costs fixed against Cloverdale.