Jean Jerome Cusmariu

A residential property owner brought an action against neighbouring commercial businesses alleging obstruction and misuse of a shared right-of-way and seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants denied interference and counterclaimed for damages and an injunction based on alleged harassment and interference with their business operations.

The court reviewed the scope of easement rights, including the principle that a right to pass and repass does not inherently include a right to park, and considered whether commercial delivery and parking activities unreasonably interfered with other users’ rights.

The court found that certain vehicle parking and delivery practices had at times unreasonably obstructed access but that many issues had improved over time.

A limited injunction regulating parking, delivery vehicle use, and positioning of security lights and cameras was granted, while all claims for damages and the defendants’ counterclaim were dismissed.

Following the withdrawal of a summary judgment motion that sought dismissal of an action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, the court determined the costs consequences.

During the initial hearing, the court raised the potential applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act to the plaintiff’s claim for a constructive trust interest in land, prompting adjournment.

The moving defendant subsequently abandoned the motion.

Applying Rule 37.09(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that responding parties were entitled to their costs forthwith unless ordered otherwise.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties with reductions to reflect the circumstances and work performed.