Johnathan Paul Mastorakos

Following a twelve-day trial regarding a property boundary and adverse possession dispute, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiffs claimed partial indemnity costs of $150,563.98, while the defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $248,861.38 and relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court found that success was equally divided, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the boundary terminus issue and the defendants succeeded on the adverse possession claim.

Consequently, the court ordered that each side bear their own costs.

The parties appeared before the court to request clarification of paragraph 112 in the first Addendum to Judgment.

The defendants proposed an additional sentence to avoid ambiguity regarding the common boundary between the properties.

The plaintiffs took no position, provided the original meaning remained unchanged.

The court agreed to amend the paragraph to clarify that the common boundary terminating at the water's edge is an ambulatory boundary that moves with the water level.

The parties appeared for further submissions to determine the terminus of the common boundary between their waterfront properties, following a previous judgment.

The court amended the judgment to clarify that the common boundary terminates at the water's edge of Balsam Lake.

On consent, the court also amended the judgment to restrict both parties from launching from or occupying land or water on specific sides of the respondent's dock to prevent impairment of each other's riparian rights.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of a zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a residential and commercial subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Township of Carlow/Mayo that authorized setbacks for existing buildings near Environmental Protection zones and waterbodies.

Prior to the hearing, the Freeman appellants and the Township reached a proposed settlement to repeal the amendment, which the Chadband appellants did not join but whose outcome they supported.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, found that the amendment was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the County Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowed the appeals, and repealed the zoning by-law amendment.