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.