A tenant in common sought partition of a long-held family cottage property on an island, relying on decades of separate use of a second cottage she had built and maintained.
The respondent opposed partition based on a family agreement restricting dealings with the property, alleged oppression, and the subdivision-control provisions of the Planning Act.
The court held that the agreement remained a relevant factor but did not clearly contract out of the Partition Act, that no malice, vexatiousness, oppression, or unclean hands were established, and that the Planning Act did not bar a partition order although municipal consent would be required for legal effect.
The application was granted subject to municipal approval.
