Joel Sénécal

The applicant brought an application under the Road Access Act to close an access road to the respondents, proposing to erect gates that would allow other property owners access while excluding the respondents.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that closure was reasonably necessary to prevent substantial damage or injury to his property interests.

Furthermore, the court held that public interest considerations, including emergency and utility access, weighed in favour of keeping the road open.

The application was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses two motions: the plaintiff's motion to compel an affidavit of documents from one defendant (Drake Cartier), and a defendant's (Lowe, Gravelle & Associates Inc., also known as EFI Engineering) motion for leave to amend its Statement of Defence and, if necessary, withdraw admissions.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion against Drake Cartier, ordering the affidavit by August 1, 2023, but without costs due to short service.

The court also granted EFI Engineering's motion to amend its Statement of Defence, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff, particularly regarding limitation periods.

The court found no admissions were made that needed withdrawal, but would have granted leave if they had been.

Costs for the second motion were awarded against the plaintiff.

The moving party sought to change a 2016 consent order for spousal support, arguing that his income had materially decreased due to a strike and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The responding party opposed the motion, noting her significant physical disabilities and that the original order was intended to equalize joint debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the income decrease was temporary and that the responding party's circumstances justified continued support.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the responding party.