J. Gregory Richards

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for a declaration of a right of way over the respondents' property.

They argued that the original grant met all four requirements to establish an easement by grant and that the trial judge erred in considering post-grant evidence and in finding the grant ambiguous.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the grant was ambiguous and lacked sufficient metes and bounds descriptions.

The trial judge correctly determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish the nature and location of the servient tenement over which the right of way was granted as it existed at the date of the grant, which was fatal to the claim.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her former legal and financial advisors alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with advice provided during negotiation of a marriage contract.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions asserting that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and constituted an abuse of process because the plaintiff had a statutory remedy under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act to set aside the marriage contract against her spouse.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability and knew or ought to have known of the material facts giving rise to her claims more than two years before commencing the action.

The court further held that attempting to obtain, through damages against advisors, relief that should have been pursued through family law proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

A member of a limousine drivers’ co‑operative brought an application under the Co‑operative Corporations Act seeking an order compelling the co‑operative to enforce its by‑law disqualifying members who held interests in competing airport limousine services.

Certain respondents had acquired shares in a holding company that owned a competing limousine operator.

The court held that the by‑law governing membership qualifications was validly enacted and that members were estopped from challenging its validity after years of operating under it.

However, the provision purporting to automatically terminate membership upon breach was inconsistent with the statute, which requires expulsion by board resolution after due process.

The court directed that the board may disqualify members with interests in the competing company following proper procedures but dismissed the application against a respondent who had divested his shares.