Jennifer Alexis Gibb Savini

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive right-of-way over a 100-foot path on the respondents' property and damages for nuisance and interference.

The court first ruled on a preliminary motion to strike two affidavits filed by the applicants, finding them inadmissible under Rule 39.02(2).

On the main application, the court found that the applicants failed to establish a prescriptive easement, primarily because the property owners (both current and previous) did not have knowledge of the path's use and did not acquiesce to it.

Furthermore, the court found that the easement was not reasonably necessary, as the applicants had previously declined an opportunity to purchase land for a legal access road.

The claim for damages for nuisance and interference was also dismissed, as the respondents' property development did not violate bylaws and did not unduly interfere with the applicants' property enjoyment.

The applicants sought to prevent the Township of Wollaston from selling a parcel of land, arguing it was subject to a charitable trust established by a will and, alternatively, that the sale was ultra vires as not properly authorized by by-law.

The court found that no charitable trust was created as certainty of intention was not met, meaning the Township held the land in fee simple.

However, the court agreed that the Township's decision to sell the property was ultra vires because it was not authorized by a specific by-law, rendering the agreement of purchase and sale null and void.

The court noted the Township could rectify this by passing a proper by-law.

Due to mixed success, no costs were awarded.

The defendants, the City of Belleville and a by-law officer, brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's 235-page statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's claim was based on a mistaken belief that private property is immune from municipal by-laws, and included various ill-defined allegations such as trespass, breach of agreement, double jeopardy, limitations, legal non-conforming status, Charter violations, Criminal Code violations, harassment, and slander.

The court found the statement of claim hopelessly flawed and struck it in its entirety, concluding that none of the alleged claims had merit and could not be salvaged by amendment.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant sought clarification on the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to issue a restraining order under subsection 36(7) of the Building Code Act, 1992, following a conviction for failing to comply with a property standards order.

The court confirmed that failure to comply with a property standards order constitutes a contravention of subsection 15.3(7) of the Act, thereby granting the justice of the peace jurisdiction under clause 36(1)(c) to issue the restraining order.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with its contempt application.

The applicant appealed two Property Standards Orders issued by the City of Quinte West concerning deficiencies in his commercial building.

The appeal from the 2011 Order was dismissed as being out of time, as the court found no jurisdiction to extend the statutory 14-day appeal period.

The appeal from the 2014 Order, which largely reiterated the 2011 Order and added further requirements, was dismissed on its merits.

The court confirmed all items of the 2014 Order, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of compliance or to persuade the court that the orders were unreasonable.

The court also discussed the standard of review for such appeals, concluding it is a de novo hearing where the judge makes their own assessment, with limited deference to the Property Standards Committee due to its composition and lack of detailed reasons.

Costs were fixed at $40,000.00 in favour of the respondent.